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, 28 October 2009

REPORT ...... 2889 Ombudsman ...... 2889 SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 2889 Standing Orders Committee ...... 2889 SPEAKER’S RULING ...... 2890 Unparliamentary Language ...... 2890 REPORT ...... 2890 Queensland Parliamentary Service ...... 2890 Tabled paper: Queensland Parliamentary Service, Annual Report 2008-09...... 2890 PETITIONS ...... 2890 TABLED PAPERS ...... 2891 MINISTERIAL PAPERS ...... 2891 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 2891 Shark Control ...... 2891 Auditor-General ...... 2891 Indigenous Housing ...... 2892 Dyball, Mr L ...... 2893 Salvation Army Recovery Service ...... 2893 Tabled paper: Copy of letter, undated, from the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health (Mr Lucas) to Mr M Reid, Director-General, Queensland Health, relating to a ministerial designation for community infrastructure...... 2893 Tabled paper: Copy of a notice of proposed ministerial designation of land for community infrastructure under the Integrated Planning Act 1997...... 2893 Jobs ...... 2894 Civil and Administrative Tribunal ...... 2895 Crime Prevention ...... 2895 Southern Queensland Accelerated Road Rehabilitation Program ...... 2895 Wyaralong Dam ...... 2896 Kirra Beach ...... 2897 Construction Industry, Payments ...... 2897

J MICKEL N J LAURIE L J OSMOND SPEAKER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER Table of Contents — Wednesday, 28 October 2009

Tourism Industry, Marketing Campaigns ...... 2898 Safe Houses ...... 2898 Seniors ...... 2898 Carers ...... 2899 Coal Industry ...... 2899 Resources Industry ...... 2900 North Queensland, Schools ...... 2900 Local Government, Masterclasses ...... 2901 MOTION ...... 2901 Amendments to Standing Orders ...... 2901 LAW, JUSTICE AND SAFETY COMMITTEE ...... 2904 Annual Report ...... 2904 Tabled paper: Law, Justice and Safety Committee, Annual Report 2008-09, Report No. 72...... 2904 NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 2904 A1GP ...... 2904 SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS ...... 2904 Visitors to the Gallery ...... 2904 African Art and Cultural Exhibition ...... 2905 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 2905 Sale of Public Assets, Information Campaign ...... 2905 Sale of Public Assets, Information Campaign ...... 2905 Tabled paper: Queensland Labor document titled ‘Information for ALP Members, Answering concerns about the assets sale’...... 2905 Vegetation Management ...... 2906 Government Owned Corporations ...... 2907 SuperGP ...... 2907 Credit Rating ...... 2908 Sunshine Coast, Health Services ...... 2908 Tabled paper: Extract from the SCUHAG website, dated 28 October 2009, relating to a general meeting of the Sunshine Coast University Hospital Action Group on 12 October 2009...... 2909 Minister for Sport ...... 2909 Queensland Economy ...... 2910 Alcohol Interlocks ...... 2910 South Stradbroke Island ...... 2911 Bushfire Preparedness ...... 2912 Bushfire Preparedness ...... 2912 Local Government Reform ...... 2913 Gold Coast Rapid Transit ...... 2913 Sunshine Coast, Property Management Agencies ...... 2914 Schools, Infrastructure ...... 2915 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENT ...... 2915 COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY (CORRUPTION, CRONYISM AND UNETHICAL BEHAVIOUR) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 2915 First Reading ...... 2915 Tabled paper: Commissions of Inquiry (Corruption, Cronyism and Unethical Behaviour) Amendment Bill...... 2915 Tabled paper: Commissions of Inquiry (Corruption, Cronyism and Unethical Behaviour) Amendment Bill, explanatory notes...... 2915 Second Reading ...... 2915 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...... 2916 Cape York Peninsula ...... 2916 CRIMINAL CODE (FILMING OR POSSESSING IMAGES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST CHILDREN) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 2916 First Reading ...... 2916 Tabled paper: Criminal Code (Filming or Possessing Images of Violence Against Children) Amendment Bill...... 2916 Tabled paper: Criminal Code (Filming or Possessing Images of Violence Against Children) Amendment Bill, explanatory notes...... 2916 Second Reading ...... 2917 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...... 2917 Cannonvale Police Station ...... 2917 Queensland Rail ...... 2918 Cairns, Public Transport ...... 2918 Sunshine Coast-Wide Bay, Health Services ...... 2919 Redcliffe, Multiculturalism ...... 2919 Queensland Rail, Fires ...... 2919 Townsville: Queensland Solar City Project; Illidge, Miss O ...... 2920 Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Magnetic Island Solar Suburb’...... 2920 Breast Cancer ...... 2920 Affordable Housing ...... 2921 Sunshine Coast, Health Services ...... 2921 Safe Work Australia Week ...... 2922 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 28 October 2009

INTEGRATED PLANNING AMENDMENT BILL ...... 2922 First Reading ...... 2922 Tabled paper: Integrated Planning Amendment Bill...... 2922 Tabled paper: Integrated Planning Amendment Bill, explanatory notes...... 2922 Second Reading ...... 2923 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...... 2923 Old Windmill Restoration ...... 2923 HEALTH AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL; HEALTH PRACTITIONER REGULATION NATIONAL LAW BILL ...... 2924 Second Reading (Cognate Debate) ...... 2924 Tabled paper: Office of the Medical Board, Queensland government, form titled ‘Area of Need—Certification for General Practitioner (GP) Positions—Form 104’...... 2937 Tabled paper: Q-Comp form titled ‘Workers’ Compensation Medical Certificate’...... 2942 MOTION ...... 2962 A1GP ...... 2962 Division: Question put—That the minister’s amendment be agreed to...... 2971 Resolved in the affirmative...... 2971 Division: Question put—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to...... 2972 Resolved in the affirmative...... 2972 MOTION ...... 2972 Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders ...... 2972 CRIMINAL CODE (HONESTY AND INTEGRITY IN PARLIAMENT) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 2972 Second Reading ...... 2972 Division: Question put—That the bill now be read a second time...... 2998 Resolved in the negative...... 2998 ADJOURNMENT ...... 2998 Hervey Bay Hospital ...... 2998 UN Refugee Convention ...... 2998 Craigslea State High School; Aspley State High School ...... 2999 Breast Cancer Awareness Month ...... 3000 Labor Party ...... 3000 Townsville West Community Centre; TOTTS ...... 3001 Answers to Questions on Notice, Springbrook ...... 3001 Balmoral Bowls Club; Brisbane Sailing Squadron ...... 3002 Eagle Heights Detox Facility; Maroon State School; Tamborine Mountain Little Theatre ...... 3002 Annual Arts Concert, Burpengary State School; Caboolture Multicultural Festival ...... 3003 ATTENDANCE ...... 3004 28 Oct 2009 Legislative Assembly 2889 WEDNESDAY, 28 OCTOBER 2009

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

REPORT

Ombudsman Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have to report that I have received from the Queensland Ombudsman a report titled Justice on the inside: a review of Queensland Corrective Services’ management of breaches of discipline by prisoners. I have also received an executive summary brochure for the report. I table the report and the brochure for the information of members. Tabled paper: Queensland Ombudsman, report titled ‘Justice on the inside: a review of Queensland Corrective Services’ management of breaches of discipline by prisoners’ [1143]. Tabled paper: Queensland Ombudsman, report titled ‘Justice on the inside: a review of Queensland Corrective Services’ management of breaches of discipline by prisoners’, executive summary [1144].

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Standing Orders Committee Mr SPEAKER: I have ordered that a statement regarding the progress of the Standing Orders Committee be circulated. I seek leave to have the statement incorporated in the parliamentary record. Leave granted. On 30 April 2008, the Premier advised the House that, as a result of discussions stemming from the working group on four-year terms, both the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the House had expressed an interest in reform and improvement of the standing orders. The Premier indicated at this time that she had asked the then Speaker, Hon Reynolds, as Chair, to convene a meeting of the committee in the following sitting week commencing 13 May 2008. Prior to the meeting both the Speaker and the Premier encouraged all members to submit their proposals to committee members for the committee’s consideration. A number of proposals were subsequently received. The committee of the 52nd Parliament met on 13 May 2008 and 6 June 2008, to consider the proposals put forward from members. Prior to the committee meeting again, the House was dissolved for the election. The Committee, re-established with a largely new membership, met again on 17 June 2009 to continue the work of the previous Committee and consider draft Standing and Sessional Order. The previous committee and the current committee considered a wide range of changes to the Standing and Sessional Orders, including: • the establishment of a business committee and a government business motion for each week, with time limits for Bills; • time limits for speeches; • rules for questions and answers; • extension of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s reporting on compliance with the Legislative Standards Act 1992; • powers of the Speaker in relation to the complaints procedures for matters of privilege; • requirements for time limits to responses to petitions; • effective use of time during the morning sessions; • time allocation for the debate of committee reports; • recording of votes when a division is called; • the application of the rule of anticipation; and • the correction of minor clerical and typographical errors in existing Standing Orders. Both committees sought comparative information from other relevant jurisdictions, in relation to a number of the proposals. At all times, where either committee was unable to come to a unanimous decision, the proposal was set aside and not agreed to. Committee members, by correspondence, and I understand through negotiation outside of the formal process, have now all agreed to a number of amendments to Sessional and Standing Orders, and have further agreed to expedite the changes by way of the Leader of the House moving a motion containing those amendments. 2890 Petitions 28 Oct 2009

SPEAKER’S RULING

Unparliamentary Language Mr SPEAKER: One of the rules of parliament that is derived from longstanding Westminster practice and precedent, rather than the standing orders, is the prohibition against the use of unparliamentary language. Unparliamentary language has been described by former Speakers of this House as including swearing and other language not acceptable in polite society. However, unparliamentary language is a much wider concept. I note that McGee, in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, provides the rationale for and describes what is meant by unparliamentary language as follows— The rules against unparliamentary language are designed to prevent personal invective and insults, and while they do not eliminate such exchanges, they do restrain members and provide a framework within which members’ speeches can be judged and controlled. What is offensive or disorderly? ... Whether a particular phrase is offensive or disorderly depends upon the context in which it is used, and an expression acceptable in one context may be unacceptable in another. McGee explains why accusations of lying are unparliamentary. He says— It is a clear personal reflection to accuse another member of lying or of attempting deliberately to mislead the House. Accusing a member of lying (whether the accusation relates to a lie alleged to have been told inside or outside the House) is a mode of expression that has been consistently ruled out of order. Whilst the word ‘lie’ has not always been ruled out of order by the chair in this House, I note that there is a wealth of precedent where ‘lie’ and its derivatives have been ruled unparliamentary (see 6 March 2002 p. 352, 14 March 2000 p. 309, 28 November 2002 p. 4990, 16 May 2002 p. 1730, 14 October 2003 p. 3997). It is with some dismay that I noted the debate from last sitting Wednesday evening when, during a debate of a private members’ bill, the word was used repeatedly in the most unparliamentary manner. I wish to make my position clear on this matter. As a rule, the word ‘lie’ and its derivatives are unparliamentary. Therefore, I will rule phrases like ‘tactical lie’, ‘tactical liar’ and ‘legalised lying’ as unparliamentary. In doing so, I am not attempting to hamper the free speech of members; I am merely regulating expression and, in doing so, I hope to lift the standard of debate. There are far better ways of expressing an opinion and making a point without resorting to unparliamentary language.

REPORT

Queensland Parliamentary Service Mr SPEAKER: I lay upon the table of the House the Queensland Parliamentary Service Annual Report for 2008-09. In addition to meeting mandatory reporting obligations, the report provides information about the operations of the Parliamentary Service during the year and highlights the service’s efforts to further its engagement with the community. I wish to thank all Parliamentary Service staff for their ongoing work, which is essential to the operations of the parliament, and I commend this annual report to honourable members. Tabled paper: Queensland Parliamentary Service, Annual Report 2008-09 [1145].

PETITIONS

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

Integrated Planning Act Mr Wellington, from 1,787 petitioners, requesting the House to support amendments to the Queensland Integrated Planning Act for a new definition of Community Hospice Guest House [1146].

Weinam Creek, Parking Mr Dowling, from 1,715 petitioners, requesting the House to intervene to set aside all parts of the Redland Bay Centre and Foreshore Master Plan adopted by Redland City Council on 26 August 2009 effecting parking of vehicles in the Weinam Creek area [1147].

Manufactured Homes Mr Powell, from 174 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 [1148]. Petitions received. 28 Oct 2009 Ministerial Statements 2891

TABLED PAPERS

MINISTERIAL PAPERS TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial papers were tabled by the Clerk— Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade (Mr Robertson)— 1149 Overseas travel report—Report on an overseas visit by the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade (Mr Robertson) to China, Japan and the Republic of Korea from 8 to 19 September 2009—Report on the Trade Mission to China, Japan and the Republic of Korea 1150 Coal Mining Safety and Health Advisory Council—Annual Report 2008-09 1151 Mining Safety and Health Advisory Council—Annual Report 2008-09 1152 Boards of Examiners (Statutory certificates of competency for safe mine management)—Annual Report 2008-09

MINISTERIAL PAPERS

The following ministerial papers were tabled— Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development (Mr Fraser)— 1153 Queensland Treasury, Annual Report 2008-09 1154 QSuper Board of Trustees, Annual Report 2008-09 1155 Queensland Future Growth Fund, Annual Report 2008-09 1156 Motor Accident Insurance Commission, Annual Report 2008-09

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Shark Control Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.36 am): I am sure that on the weekend members of this House will have seen the image of the three-metre white pointer shark that had a bite taken out of it. The images made their way around the world and, by the time the image got to the UK’s Daily Mail, the shark taking the bite was a 20-foot monster terrorising swimmers off the Queensland coast. Mr Johnson: It must have been a big Labor shark. Ms BLIGH: There might be plenty of sharks in here. The truth is that these are magnificent creatures. However, bather safety always must be our No. 1 priority. For that reason our shark control program, which features nets and drum lines, will remain in place. Today, I am pleased to announce a $50,000 investment in a new research project to track the movement of some of the state’s most dangerous species. In conjunction with shark scientists, this project will focus on our three most dangerous species of sharks—bull, tiger and white sharks—to monitor their activity in and around the coastal region. Live sharks will be caught and fitted with acoustic tags. The movement of the sharks will then be tracked through acoustic listening stations along the Queensland coast. This information will give us a better understanding of the behaviour of dangerous shark species, allowing us to further improve our shark control program and better protect our beaches. There has been tagging research undertaken in other parts of Australia, so we expect that, in addition to our own tagging, we may be able to pick up additional data from migrating sharks that have been tagged elsewhere. In addition to this project, the government is also investing in new acoustic alarms designed to alert whales and dolphins to the presence of nets, and those are already in use. I am advised that we have worked with a specialist acoustic device manufacturer to develop an updated alarm that gives off a louder noise for a longer listening period. We expect to start a trial of those new devices in December. So far this year on the Gold Coast five whales have been entangled. That is a relatively small number considering there are up to 13,000 whales migrating back to southern waters, but it is still five too many. Technology such as this could mean that in the future both tragedies in our nets and tragedies on our beaches can become a thing of the past. Auditor-General Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.38 am): The nature of auditors-general is that they always find room for improvement. As a government we do not fear that; in fact, we expect it. We want the Auditor-General of Queensland to do his job and we expect him to continue to do that and identify room for improvement for the people of Queensland. Today I am pleased to advise the House of the reappointment of Mr Glenn Poole as the Auditor-General of Queensland for a further two-year term from December 2009. Mr Poole’s reappointment enables him to provide input into and commence the implementation of the outcomes of the strategic review of the 2892 Ministerial Statements 28 Oct 2009

Queensland Audit Office. His reappointment will bring his total terms of appointment to seven years, which is the maximum appointment period permissible under the Auditor-General Act 2009. The Public Accounts and Public Works Committee supported the reappointment and I thank it for that. I am confident that, under Mr Poole’s continuing leadership, the Queensland Audit Office will continue to ensure the highest levels of public sector accountability in this state. The Auditor-General Act 2009 requires that a strategic review of the office is to be undertaken at least every five years. The strategic review is to address the Auditor-General’s functions and performance to determine whether those functions are being performed economically, effectively and efficiently. I wish to inform the House that on 8 October 2009 the Governor in Council approved the appointment of Mr Graham Carpenter and Mr Mark Gray to jointly undertake the strategic review of the Queensland Audit Office. This will be done in accordance with the approved terms of reference, a copy of which was provided to the Public Accounts Committee. With high professional standing and a sound understanding of public sector auditing, both Mr Carpenter and Mr Gray are appropriately qualified to examine auditing methodologies and undertake the review. I consulted with both the Public Accounts and Public Works Committee and the Auditor- General on the proposed reviewers and terms of reference, and no objections were raised. The strategic review has commenced and it is anticipated that the reviewers will provide a report to me in early 2010 which I will table in the House at that time. Indigenous Housing Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.40 am): Queensland is leading the way in the efficient and effective rollout of remote Indigenous housing in Australia. In May this year we established the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing with the federal government. Under that agreement, 1,141 houses will be built or refurbished in our remote Indigenous communities over the next nine years. It is fair to say that governments of all persuasions have had good intentions on these issues in the past. Unfortunately, it is also fair to say that too often these good intentions have not met the needs of those communities. The complexities of native title and infrastructure issues in remote areas have made this type of housing notoriously difficult and expensive to deliver. Poor town planning in these communities has exacerbated these impediments. We need a greater sense of urgency to overcome these hurdles and get these houses on the ground. That is why today I am pleased to announce that the Remote Indigenous Land and Infrastructure Program Office has been established to improve our delivery of these houses. On Monday cabinet approved a road map that this office will use over the next nine years to facilitate and accelerate the largest ever Commonwealth-state rollout of new housing into these very disadvantaged communities. A key task will also be to negotiate with councils to secure 40-year leases over land and leases. This means that, regardless of native title, the state government will be able to maintain the homes that it builds. The program office has prioritised work in Mornington Island, Aurukun, Doomadgee and Hope Vale, in addition to Palm Island, Kowanyama and Yarrabah. These leases are expected to be in place by June 2010. I am pleased today to commend the Doomadgee council, which signed up to the 40-year lease arrangements just over a month ago. Materials for three factory built houses are now on the ground in Doomadgee as a result of that decision by the council. Services are being connected and they expect that that will be completed by the end of December. I think that is an example of what can be achieved when a council is prepared to put the needs of its people first and overcome some of the difficulties of the past. I commend Doomadgee council, as I said, for their courage and determination to provide better housing for the people they represent. I give a commitment to all other councils that are contemplating this issue that should they agree to sign up to these leases we will work with them with the same sense of urgency as we are working with Doomadgee council to get as many homes on the ground as quickly as possible. The program office will also undertake rigorous town planning in these areas to identify community needs, development constraints and investigate how government investment can be maximised. The next phase will focus on surveying roads and existing infrastructure in these regions. The program office will ensure that town planning schemes in these remote areas comply with the Integrated Planning Act 1997. This work will be completed by December 2013. My government has recently approved $67 million to fund a suite of municipal infrastructure projects in the Remote Service Delivery National Partnership Agreement communities of Mornington Island, Aurukun, Doomadgee and Hope Vale, with $10 million set aside for emergent priorities in other communities. It is through the work of the program office that programs such as this will be delivered much more quickly and I hope that we continue to be in front of the rest of the country on this. Through this program office and the road map that has been approved, we are planning for a better future for Queenslanders wherever they live. 28 Oct 2009 Ministerial Statements 2893

Dyball, Mr L Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.44 am): The many people who visit the Executive Building on a regular basis will know that Lindsay Dyball, a long-serving Executive Building lift driver, is an institution in Brisbane. It is my sad duty to report to the House this morning that following a heart attack on the weekend Lindsay passed away last night. Lindsay Dyball joined the Department of Public Works—or the department of works as it was then—as a cleaner in October 1979. In fact, he passed his 30th anniversary just last week. From there, he joined the lift drivers team in 1996. He has proudly and respectfully served four premiers and four governors and served every one of them well. Lindsay’s greatest passions in life, apart from his wife and his two children, Scott and Kym, were cricket, the Broncos and the State of Origin, even though he was born in New South Wales. It was not unusual during cricket season to find Lindsay with a small radio to his ear always willing to keep people up to date with the scores. And when you got in the lift and asked Lindsay how he was, more often than not he would dryly reply, ‘For a lift driver, you know, up and down.’ At Christmas time Lindsay’s lift would be adorned with tinsel and decorations. He would be the first in the Executive Building—and I suggest one of the first in any CBD buildings—to get into the festive spirit. His lift would have Christmas cards from wall to wall from the many people he met in his work, including visiting dignitaries, state ministers and even a very personal and much cherished handwritten card from Her Excellency the Governor-General of Australia. As well as being a stalwart of the Executive Building, Lindsay was an inspiration as he went about his duties cheerfully and diligently, despite a very serious vision impairment. On behalf of the government, members of this House and members of the media gallery and others who knew Lindsay, I would like to convey our sympathies and our condolences to his family. He will be sorely missed by everyone in the Executive Building, especially Barry Seely and the security team who made it their business to keep an eye on Lindsay both while at work and while at home. With the passing of Lindsay Dyball, I think we note the passing of an era. Honourable members: Hear, hear! Salvation Army Recovery Service Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Health) (9.47 am): I rise to inform the House that today I have made a ministerial designation of land for community infrastructure under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 for 168 MacDonnell Road at Eagle Heights. Queensland Health will lease around seven hectares of the 57 hectares of land at Eagle Heights to the Salvation Army to run its recovery service. Queensland Health purchased the property at Eagle Heights after it was identified by the Salvation Army as suiting their needs. A community infrastructure designation process on the property was instigated by Queensland Health to determine its viability for use by the Salvation Army. Detailed environmental assessments and community feedback received during public consultation were collated into a final report for consideration. Queensland Health is now progressing master planning of the seven hectares to determine the infrastructure work required for the property and to address the requirements documented in the environmental assessment report. A number of issues were raised during the consultation process—namely, traffic management, water and sewerage infrastructure, and fencing. Whilst not part of the designation itself, I have directed Queensland Health to ensure that certain conditions are met prior to relocation of the service—namely, that access to the site be improved from MacDonnell Road; that water, sewerage, fire protection and electrical services be upgraded; and that fencing be negotiated with adjacent neighbours. I table the relevant documentation. Tabled paper: Copy of letter, undated, from the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health (Mr Lucas) to Mr M Reid, Director-General, Queensland Health, relating to a ministerial designation for community infrastructure [1157]. Tabled paper: Copy of a notice of proposed ministerial designation of land for community infrastructure under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 [1158]. Approximately seven hectares will be leased to the Salvation Army for the service. I have further directed Queensland Health to place a covenant on the remaining 50 hectares under the Land Title Act 1994 and the Land Act 1994 which will protect the land outside the area leased to the Salvation Army against future development. In other words, it used to be in private hands and it could have been subject to other development. It will now be in government hands and the 50 hectares will be free from development and protected for the future. The Salvation Army is one of the largest and most trusted welfare providers in the world. Each week the Salvation Army provide people in need with an estimated 100,000 meals, 5,000 beds to the homeless, 500 rehabilitation places and refuge for 400 victims of domestic violence. The Salvation Army Recovery Service helps hundreds of people across Australia through its recovery program each year and operates similar services at the Moonyah Recovery Centre at Red Hill and the Townsville Recovery Services Centre, as well as interstate. 2894 Ministerial Statements 28 Oct 2009

I took the time, and indeed many hours, to read the submissions in detail. It is fair to say that some of the objections raised in some submissions related to a rejection of the concept of the service altogether, or at least in a location near some submitters. Many raised issues of concern with respect to the impact of the designation, and that is why we have imposed conditions that will deal with these concerns. I was heartened also by the positive comments about the Salvation Army’s Recovery Service. Ross Pelling, the ministry team leader from the Southport Church of Christ, said— The church has run a significant number of children’s, youth and university ministries whilst at Parklands Drive next door to Fairhaven, and at no time has there been even a suggestion of any issue or concern raised or evident of any detrimental effect of this proximity. A statement from one resident who lives near the Salvation Army facility in Leura said, ‘If I didn’t know it was a rehabilitation centre, I would be none the wiser.’ Another said they had not experienced any increase in the incidences of crime. There has been a lot of misinformation about the Salvation Army service spread throughout the community. A doctor visits the centre three days a week and nursing staff are on hand every day. The centre is staffed 24 hours a day to provide any assistance that residents require. This service does not provide—I repeat: does not provide—methadone replacement or a needle exchange program. It is an abstinence based approach with intensive education, counselling and support by an organisation recognised internationally for its compassion and dedication to helping those less fortunate than ourselves. Many people in this House on both sides talk about the scourge of drug and alcohol addiction. If we are going to begin to make inroads into this as a society then we need community services such as this recovery service. Quite frankly, I can think of few organisations more responsible and with more than 130 years of experience than the Salvation Army. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the community members and agencies that provided constructive feedback and information during the designation process, and of course I would like to thank the Salvation Army for its ongoing commitment to helping Queenslanders through life’s challenges.

Jobs Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development) (9.50 am): As everyone appreciates, Queensland has faced significant challenges since the onset of the global financial crisis. This government has put the plans in place and taken the hard decisions to stimulate employment and create jobs. We have locked in an $18 billion building program, the largest in the country, protecting 127,000 jobs. We have maintained the most competitive payroll tax regime in the country and introduced tax breaks for employers of apprentices and trainees. We have introduced nation-leading job creation and support programs like the Green Army, a $57 million program that will create 3,000 jobs, and we also have JobsAssist. The government is delivering on its $10 million JobsAssist program right across the state of Queensland. Under the program, assistance is provided to eligible businesses that show early signs of stress, are at risk of experiencing difficulties as the economic downturn continues or have the potential to take on staff but require support to do so. Our position is that, when it comes to jobs, prevention is always better than a cure. We are not waiting for firms to ring us. The Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, through its regional centres across Queensland and in conjunction with their business networks in each region, has been proactively identifying firms that may benefit from the program. Numerous organisations have contacted the department for support. JobsAssist will help in providing advice to help businesses retain at least 730 staff and become stronger and more resilient based on the inquiries to date. Already, 18 businesses from Maryborough, the Sunshine Coast, the Gold Coast, Bundaberg and Cairns have now got professional help and assistance on board to work with them on their businesses. This includes an engineering firm in Bundaberg that wants help with systems improvement and a tourism company on the Gold Coast seeking assistance in improving its marketing approach. We have a state-wide network of recognised business specialists enabling client businesses to access professional support in areas such as financial planning, business planning, human resources and more. The selected business specialist assesses the firm and then develops an action plan that identifies and prioritises tasks that need to be addressed to protect jobs and improve operations. JobsAssist is an early life support program to help vulnerable businesses get back on track and avoid having to shut their doors and lay off staff. Almost everyone acknowledges the effects of the global downturn on the Queensland economy, and that is flowing through to employment. We are putting in place plans to cushion the impact on Queensland workers and their families and, as we shift into recovery mode, position small business to grow into the future. 28 Oct 2009 Ministerial Statements 2895

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (9.53 am): Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending the swearing-in ceremony for a new justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland and the new Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal president, Justice Alan Wilson. Justice Wilson has extensive experience in mediation and alternative dispute resolution which makes him eminently qualified to be the new president of our state’s new administrative and review tribunal, which will be known as QCAT. Yesterday’s ceremony was a poignant event for many people in the legal profession. As members of this House will be aware, Justice Wilson has been appointed to replace the late Justice Peter Dutney, who tragically passed away suddenly last month. QCAT represents the most significant structural reform to the Queensland justice system in more than 50 years and is due to start on 1 December this year. It replaces 23 tribunals with a single point of access, making it easier for people with civil matters and disputes to access the support, information and resolution services they need. It makes our justice system more accessible for Queenslanders right across the state, and it will result in a quicker and fairer tribunal system for everyone. The establishment of QCAT is part of the Bligh government’s steps to renovate, reform and modernise our justice system and make it more equitable. We are also embarking on other significant reforms as part of our commitment to a fairer and safer Queensland, such as the establishment of Victim Assist Queensland to help victims of violent crime and the implementation of the recommendations of the Moynihan review concerning the operation of our civil and criminal courts. The Bligh government’s continuing reform agenda is vital for Queensland’s justice system. We are moving forward to ensure our system of justice remains relevant—delivering laws that reflect change and growth while maintaining basic principles of fairness in our society. This is part of the Bligh government’s ongoing program to make our justice system more accessible, safer and fairer for all Queenslanders.

Crime Prevention Hon. NS ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services) (9.55 am): October is Crime Prevention Month, a time to promote crime prevention measures and boost community safety in Queensland. With that in mind, later today I will join Acting Assistant Commissioner Katarina Carroll to promote the state-wide rollout of microdot detection technology. Microdot technology is at the cutting edge of antitheft identification and is an easy way of marking property for identification in the event of theft. The Queensland Police Service, with the support of the Brisbane City Council, undertook a trial distribution of microdots in Brisbane’s northern suburbs last year, and I am pleased to advise that the technology is now being rolled out state-wide through the Queensland Police Service. All police districts across the state have been provided with microdot detection equipment. Microdots are about the size of a grain of sand and are laser etched with a unique identifying code which is invisible to the naked eye. Householders register this unique identifier with their local police station. The advantage of microdots is that they can be placed on an array of objects, including CDs, artwork, bicycles, antiques, tools, mowers and jet skis. In the event that police recover stolen property, property that is marked with a microdot can be scanned and quickly returned to its owner. Property theft from homes and businesses costs the Queensland community millions of dollars each year. The Queensland Police Service hopes that by highlighting the importance of marking property it will be able to reduce crime and instances of theft in Queensland. The Bligh government went to the election with a commitment to investigate the distribution of data-dot technology through PCYC Queensland, and we are delivering. Queenslanders can purchase microdot kits from a range of suppliers, including the Brisbane City Council, commercial suppliers and selected PCYCs across the state, and apply the invisible product to the surface of valuables. I would like to again acknowledge the work of the Queensland Police Service, PCYCs and the Brisbane City Council in promoting this worthwhile initiative and urge all Queenslanders to consider the benefits of such technology in protecting their property.

Southern Queensland Accelerated Road Rehabilitation Program Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads) (9.57 am): I am pleased to advise the House that the Southern Queensland Accelerated Road Rehabilitation Program has been completed this month—two months ahead of schedule. This program has been a $126.5 million initiative of the Bligh government to accelerate the replacement of 31 timber bridges in Southern Queensland, as well as the construction of almost nine kilometres of new approach roads. 2896 Ministerial Statements 28 Oct 2009

By combining the delivery of these bridges under one program, we have been able to replace these bridges at a significantly reduced cost and more quickly than under traditional delivery arrangements. In some cases, these bridges have been replaced about 12 years earlier than they would have been under normal circumstances. Mr Messenger: There are four bridges you haven’t opened yet. Mr WALLACE: This has allowed local communities in Southern Queensland and motorists using the road network to experience the benefits of these bridge replacements sooner. I take the member for Burnett’s interjection that he does not support this program. Mr MESSENGER: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I find the words that the minister said to be dishonest and offensive and I ask that they with be withdrawn. Mr WALLACE: I withdraw. The new bridges provide improved freight efficiency, better flood immunity, improved alignments and greater safety. An alliance between the Department of Transport and Main Roads, Aurecon, Wagstaff Piling, Holcim Pty Ltd, Queensland Bridge and Civil, and Civil Mining and Construction has been successfully replacing the selected bridges. An advantage of the alliance delivery arrangement has been in eliminating risks associated with the supply of materials to the program. These risks were accentuated by the 2005-08 boom in construction activities, particularly in the mining and civil construction industries. The department’s construction arm, RoadTek, was engaged by the alliance to demolish timber bridges and, importantly, reclaim useable timber for maintenance on other timber bridges. It is estimated that the value of the reclaimed timber is $1 million. Recently I officially named the last bridge to be completed under the accelerated bridge replacement program the Slip Gully Bridge on Forest Hill-Fernvale Road as part of the Q150 celebrations. I would like to especially thank the member for Ipswich West, Mr Wayne Wendt, who helped me with that project, especially with the naming. Well done, Wayne, that was a great day. I also thank the member for Lockyer, Mr Rickuss, who was also on hand to see those celebrations. Other recent successes achieved by the alliance include three bridges replaced in the Bundaberg Regional Council area—Littabella and Mullet Creek bridges on Bundaberg-Lowmead Road and the Gregory River Bridge on the Isis Highway south-west of Bundaberg. Mr Messenger: Why didn’t you come and open it? Mr WALLACE: I did drive over it, member for Burnett. I did go for a drive over it and have a very good look at them. They are very fine pieces of structure. Indeed, I inspected some of that timber that we will be recycling for other bridges in the vicinity. They are very good projects. In the Somerset Regional Council area, Lockyer Creek Bridge has been replaced on Forest Hill- Fernvale Road to benefit the local community. The Bligh government is getting on with the job of delivering infrastructure for Queenslanders—better bridges and better roads through smarter and more innovative ways like this accelerated bridge replacement program. Wyaralong Dam Hon. SJ HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) (10.01 am): A significant milestone has been reached with the completion of the first stage of the Wyaralong Dam project near Beaudesert. The access road for the project is now finished and work on the first new dam in 20 years can begin. As we speak, an on-site quarry is being established to provide materials for the dam wall which will stand some 500 metres long and up to 48 metres high. The Wyaralong Dam, in conjunction with the nearby Cedar Grove Weir, will supply 21,000 million litres of water every year. That is enough water for close to 300,000 people. The milestone highlights the Bligh government’s commitment to securing South-East Queensland’s water supply now and into the future. Not only is the Wyaralong Dam an important new water supply; this $348 million project is creating real employment opportunities for long-term job seekers. The dam will create 420 construction jobs, with more than 200 workers on the job right now including about 80 locals. In addition, around 150 local businesses have been used to supply goods or services to the project. I am also pleased to report that the first recruits from the Wyaralong Dam Green Army are marching into the workforce after graduating from a 15-week horticultural program. The Green Army is a Skilling Queenslanders for Work initiative run in partnership with Civic Solutions and the Bremer Institute of TAFE. When I visited these 10 recruits in July, they were hard at work helping with important environmental work as part of the Wyaralong Dam project and learning new valuable skills for future careers in horticulture, conservation or land management. The course has proved a resounding success. Nine out of the 10 recruits are now employed. One recruit has secured what is arguably South- East Queensland’s best job, working on Moreton Island as a groundskeeper at the Tangalooma Island Resort. 28 Oct 2009 Ministerial Statements 2897

This is just the beginning for the Green Army, with a second team of recruits now hard at work and many more to come. If approved, it is expected that the Green Army will go to work on the Traveston Crossing Dam, providing training and strong futures for people in the region. As announced by the Treasurer, Queensland’s Green Army is a $57 million investment in our people and natural resources that will employ 3,000 Queenslanders over the next three years on projects of environmental significance.

Kirra Beach

Hon. KJ JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability) (10.03 am): I am pleased to inform the House that stage 2 improvement works at Kirra Beach are on track to commence next month. This will be another significant major milestone in our government’s commitment to restore Kirra to its former glory. It comes after scientific tests found that Mother Nature had given the project a big helping hand. The storms this year, the largest we have seen on the Gold Coast in the past 14 years, shed approximately 200,000 cubic metres of sand from Kirra. This was a great outcome for Kirra Beach. It meant massive quantities of sand being removed, not at taxpayers’ expense. While more of Kirra Reef is now visible and the width of the beach at the surf club is now around 100 metres less than it was prior to the storms, the job is not yet done. We have committed to proceed with the next stage of the project with the moving of more sand from the Kirra Beach face to the back of the beach to form sand dunes. This will commence as soon as council’s community consultation report is finalised and evaluated, and contractors can be arranged to undertake this work. I expect this to occur by the end of next month in time for the school holidays, working closely with key stakeholders. In fact, today Department of Environment and Resource Management officers will be meeting with council officers to progress this work. I can confirm that we are committed to spending the full $1.5 million on improving Kirra Beach. As well as further beach works at Kirra, we will also explore longer term solutions to prevent any future sand build-up at Kirra. This could include designing the sand bypassing project so that it also pumps sand south as well as north of the Tweed. These developments follow the relocation of 10,000 cubic metres of sand earlier this year to fill low-lying lagoon areas at Kirra and a further 10,000 being relocated for emergency repairs to the eroded Palm Beach. Our commitment to Kirra is rock solid, and I look forward to our government’s progress in bringing back this world famous break.

Construction Industry, Payments

Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Information and Communication Technology) (10.06 am): Payment has long been a critical issue for the building industry as it is heavily dependent upon credit and cash flow. In recent years the Bligh government has created a number of reforms to assist subcontractors in addressing these payment issues. One particular reform was the introduction of the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004. This act turned five at the beginning of this month, and it is making a difference to the payment culture of the Queensland building and construction industry. This is happening through improved contract administration practices and requiring parties to attempt to negotiate a settlement before the payment dispute is referred to adjudication. I am advised that for every dispute that proceeds to adjudication many more disputes are settled through negotiation between the parties. During the last financial year, 999 adjudication applications were lodged for payments totalling $234.5 million. Subcontractors are the most frequent users of the adjudication process, as they have struggled with payment issues for decades. Subcontractors lodged 743 of the 999 applications. The value of these claims was $108.3 million. Of these 743 applications, 552 decisions were released, 156 applications were withdrawn and 69 applications are still outstanding. Of the matters decided, $96.2 million was decided in favour of subcontractors. Since the commencement of this act, 2,540 adjudication applications have been lodged with a value of $660 million. To ensure that the act continues to provide benefits to the industry, the BSA is about to commence a review and assess its performance against its stated objectives. The review will also consider the possibility of developing and implementing a suitable form of adjudication to resolve payment and contractual disputes in the domestic building sector. A committee of building industry representatives including the Queensland Master Builders Association, the Housing Industry Association and subcontractors has been formed to conduct this review. The committee will then report to the BSA board, which will then provide its recommendations to me in relation to any changes that may be required to the rapid adjudication system. I look forward to these recommendations, as the role the building industry will play in Queensland’s future is critical to the state’s economic growth and prosperity. 2898 Ministerial Statements 28 Oct 2009

Tourism Industry, Marketing Campaigns Hon. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading) (10.08 am): Three recent Tourism Queensland marketing campaigns reported strong results. The 10-month ‘Hey, Hey this is Queensland’ TV, print, radio and online campaign has driven 140,000 visitors to the best holiday campaign website since its launch on 31 August. The feedback from operators involved in the ‘Hey, Hey this is Queensland’ campaign has been extremely positive. Several operators reported referral spikes of more than 250 per cent. In addition, accommodation provider Mantra Group received more than 1,400 inquiries in a single day just after the campaign launched. The Mantra Group promotes more than 140 properties across Australia and these inquiries translated into the sale of more than 2,400 room nights. While it is still early days, this is a strong testament that the campaign has achieved the cut through that we were aiming for. Recently, Tourism Queensland launched the Get Some Gold Coast Sun Sale campaign, with Gold Coast Tourism and major online travel corporation Wotif, which has shown some great results. The joint Get Some Gold Coast Sun Sale involved 76 Gold Coast operators. It began on 3 September and finished on 15 September. Over the campaign period, Wotif.com reported a nearly 17 per cent increase in Gold Coast bookings. New visitors to Wotif.com’s Gold Coast regional pages were also up by more than 240 per cent over the period. It is estimated that visitor expenditure from the campaign could total as much as $6.6 million. These are fantastic results for both the operators involved in the campaign and the Gold Coast tourism industry. The recent Whitsundays 74 Hour Sale recorded over 19,700 visits to its campaign website, 2,300 seat bookings through airline partner Virgin Blue and 2,000 room nights across the region. It is estimated that this campaign will inject around $2.5 million into the Whitsunday economy. Whitsunday tourism operators reported that as soon as the campaign was launched, their phones were running hot. The state government is committed to protecting tourism jobs through positive policies.

Safe Houses Hon. PG REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Sport) (10.10 am): Indigenous safe houses are on track to provide safe places to live for up to 66 abused and neglected Indigenous children in their remote communities. Seven safe houses are well underway, with some services starting to come on line from the end of this year. Consultation and planning has commenced with the remaining four communities. These houses will mean that vulnerable kids can leave a home where they are at risk of abuse and stay safe within their own community, stay in touch with their extended family and, more importantly, their culture. The most positive aspect of these houses is that they will all have family support workers to work with parents to address their issues. Safe houses are just part of the package of measures that the Bligh government has in place to tackle Indigenous child protection issues, including a new task force with a brief to work on this issue. An experienced non-government organisation, ACT for Kids, will run the safe house at Doomadgee. Recently, I visited the Doomadgee safe house with the member for Mount Isa and the director-general, where the Doomadgee council was meeting with ACT for Kids. So I can announce today that ACT for Kids will receive nearly $2.8 million over three years to run the safe house, which should be offering some services to children and families by the end of the year. Tenders have closed for an NGO to run the completed safe house at Yarrabah. At Aurukun, Kowanyama and Pormpuraaw, construction of safe houses is underway and should be completed in the first quarter of 2010 and be available to local children by midyear. The family intervention workers should be on the job by the end of January. All 11 safe houses will be providing safe places for local children by mid-2012. As well as at Doomadgee, Aurukun, Kowanyama, Pormpuraaw and Yarrabah, a safe house will be operating from a temporary facility at Napranum by the end of the year and at Palm Island by late 2010. Four more safe houses at Mornington Island, the northern peninsula, eastern Cape York and the Torres Strait are on target to be completed by early 2012. Keeping children safe is my top priority and safe houses are just part of that commitment to young Queenslanders.

Seniors Hon. KL STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (Minister for Community Services and Housing and Minister for Women) (10.12 am): Seniors are the life and soul of Queensland communities. It is due to their dedication and drive, their enthusiasm and energy that we are in such good shape today. I have been out and about talking to seniors and listening to what they have to say about issues that matter to them: health, housing, urban development, transport, safety and security. It is a listening tour and it follows the Premier’s release of our discussion paper titled Positively Ageless. The views of seniors are important. They will help shape our new seniors strategy. 28 Oct 2009 Ministerial Statements 2899

The Bligh government wants action on seniors and the Premier has asked me to spearhead the drive. We want to support seniors so that they can continue to enrich their lives and the lives of everyday Queenslanders. That is why we are investing more than $190 million this year on services and programs for seniors. Our seniors concessions are among the most comprehensive in the country. Forty-five per cent of tenants in social housing are seniors. At every seniors forum they ask about housing. That is another reason we are rolling out more than 4,000 new social housing dwellings across the state. But it is an uphill battle, with nimbys across the chamber blocking us every step of the way. The member for Aspley is against social housing. She sponsored an e-petition opposing a development in her electorate. We know where the member for Surfers Paradise stands. He wants them out of Skiff Street in his electorate and onto skid row. The member for Cleveland sponsored an e-petition opposing disability-accessible social housing next to the Birkdale Railway Station. The member for Currumbin is against social housing on the Gold Coast Highway at Palm Beach. The member for Bundaberg does not want to spoil the aesthetic qualities of Hillvue Crescent in Bundaberg. Where do they want their seniors to spend their twilight years? In the backblocks—away from family, friends and everything they hold familiar? I have embarked on a six-week consultation with seniors. I have had great feedback from seniors in Bulimba, Cairns and Townsville. Next week there is South Brisbane, Logan and Barcaldine. Seniors have raised everything from the issue of safe footpaths to share housing and more support for grandparent carers. I am particularly keen to hear the views of Indigenous seniors. Their road can be rougher than most. I want every member of this House to get behind our seniors strategy and support social housing for seniors, too. Members opposite are notorious for saying one thing in this House and spinning another story to the voters in their own backyard.

Carers Hon. A PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Disability Services and Multicultural Affairs) (10.15 am): Queensland’s carers make an enormous contribution to the lives of thousands of Queenslanders. The Bligh government values the contribution of the state’s 530,000 unpaid carers and we are committed to supporting them in their important work. That is why we provided sponsorship funding of $25,000 to Carers Queensland to assist in the running of last week’s Carers Week. Part of the celebration included National Carers Day in Brisbane and the Carer-Friendly Business Awards on 22 October. Carers Week pays tribute to the valuable contribution of carers to individuals, families and communities throughout the state. As well as making a big difference to a person’s wellbeing, carers make a significant social and economic contribution to the community. Last week, I was pleased to announce that the Bligh-Rudd governments have provided an extra $1.2 million in funding to assist Queensland carers in their caring role. That means an extra $1.2 million a year to ensure that carers have access to support services and the information that they need to care for their loved ones. That extra funding will fund support forums, individual counselling services and information to assist carers. Carers dedicate a lot of their time to improving the quality of the lives of our nation’s elderly and people with disabilities. Caring for someone full-time is physically and emotionally demanding and from time to time carers need to be able to take a well-earned break. The services we are funding with this new money are all about meeting the needs of individual carers and the people they care for. The Bligh government funds a number of important initiatives aimed at improving the lives of carers including $1.9 million in funding to Carers Queensland for counselling, support and advocacy; $30.5 million in 2008-09 for the provision of 885,000 hours of home based respite care services; and $4.2 million in funding for respite for older parent carers, which funds 22 respite service providers in 25 locations across the state. The Bligh government is delivering for carers and we will continue to give them the support that they need.

Coal Industry Hon. RG NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (Minister for Transport) (10.17 am): Nearly 40 years after its inception, Central Queensland’s coal industry is well capitalised, mature and is showing strong signs of recovery from its recent downturn. In the first quarter of 2009-10, coal exports have rebounded to preglobal financial crisis levels. Although the price of both coking and thermal coal remains below its recent peak, the recovery in volume is a remarkable result for an industry that really suffered as a result of the global recession. 2900 Ministerial Statements 28 Oct 2009

Based on performance so far, we estimate that coal exports will reach 174 million tonnes in 2009- 10—a 9.4 per cent increase on the previous year. To put that in context, just 10 years ago Queensland coal exports were only 105 million tonnes. These green shoots are set to continue, with the World Steel Association forecasting 2010 global demand to grow by 9.2 per cent. Queensland is well placed to meet this growth. Recent expansions include a 13 million tonne upgrade of the Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal, a deal negotiated by a private port on a long-term lease from the Queensland government with privately owned mines and done with private finance. The government has also recently announced that the future of the Northern Missing Link project is secure following agreement with two coal companies. We always said we would build what the coal companies wanted when they wanted it. That is what we are doing. Since announcing the project other customers are showing strong interest. Members opposite said that we should build this project without a good commercial deal in place, leaving taxpayers to carry unreasonable risk. This shows how wrong their priorities are. This project, being built to benefit big international private coal companies, can and should be financed privately in the future just like the Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal is at the moment. The implementation of this government’s plan to reform Queensland finances will ensure we come out of this stronger. Resources Industry Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade) (10.20 am): Throughout Queensland’s 150-year history the mining and petroleum industries have contributed significantly to the economic wellbeing of Queensland. But mines have a finite life and Queensland needs to encourage discoveries to find new projects that replace existing mines as they close. New projects mean more jobs for Queenslanders. This government is facing up to those challenges. We aim to make Queensland the greenfields exploration capital of Australia by 2020. To achieve this vision the government is using a multipronged approach of initiatives. They include the $29 million Smart Mining—Future Prosperity program; the $10 million Carbon Geostorage Initiative and the $5 million Coastal Geothermal Energy Initiative. Another new initiative is the Queensland resource industry ambassadors. Their role is to champion investment in our exploration and mining industries. Additionally, the government makes land available for petroleum and geothermal exploration through call-for-tenders processes. These programs have resulted in significant exploration expenditure commitments. From 2005 to 2008 some $987 million was committed for petroleum exploration and $206 million for geothermal exploration. Additionally, $37 million has been committed for mineral land releases. We have solid policies delivering results. Yet on the other side the LNP says one thing and does another. At the last election the Nationals publicly supported uranium mining. But how does this sit with their city Liberal colleagues who we all know really support our ongoing opposition to uranium mining? Let us not forget about the CPRS. Barnaby Joyce runs around St George denying climate change. I wonder how Liberal LNP voters in the city feel about the silence of their city members on this issue. Those opposite say one thing and do another. Meanwhile the Bligh government is getting on with the job. Exploration investment in Queensland continues to expand, supporting our economy and supporting jobs in spite of the current global economic situation. The ABS reports total mineral and petroleum exploration expenditure in Queensland has increased over 80 per cent from $354 million in 2005-06 to a new record of $640 million in 2008-09. This is even up on the $563 million invested in 2007-08 at the height of the resources boom. Of equal importance to the increase in exploration expenditure are the jobs that the exploration industry sustains. These jobs cover a wide range of skills including geologists and drillers and a long list of service providers for items such as food, accommodation and fuel. The Bligh government is delivering a healthy exploration sector which means a healthy economy, regional development and, most importantly, jobs. North Queensland, Schools Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training) (10.23 am): I have spent the past week in North Queensland seeing firsthand the many great things happening in schools and TAFEs in the north. I visited schools where hardworking teachers and principals are coaxing great improvements from our students. They are doing this by working with their communities and engaging with local parents to ensure schools are meeting their children’s needs. Yarrabah State School is a fine example of what can be achieved through hard work by teachers and a community banding together. Their 60 per cent improvement in this year’s NAPLAN results is proof of their achievement. I thank the honourable member for Mulgrave for his attendance on the day that we visited the school. There are also impressive programs designed to help create and support jobs for all Queenslanders. We have a Q2 target of having two-thirds of Queenslanders holding trade, training or tertiary qualifications by 2020. The Work Readiness Program is one scheme providing jobs and training 28 Oct 2009 Motion 2901 for young Indigenous people in western Cape York. This program is part of a $2.4 million initiative from the Australian government as part of the Western Cape Regional Partnership Agreement. The Commonwealth, state and local governments are working with business and industry and traditional Indigenous groups. The initiative will help make up to 120 people job ready by training them in areas such as financial management, literacy and numeracy, hospitality and building and construction. This will help these young people take advantage of job opportunities within their local communities. It is already showing great results with more than 30 people gaining employment. The Work Readiness Program is a partnership between the Weipa campus of the Tropical North Queensland Institute of TAFE, Education Queensland’s Western Cape College and the Weipa Chamber of Commerce. It targets job seekers in the Mapoon, Aurukun, Napranum and Weipa communities. The program is great because it is individualised. The training is tailored to meet the needs of those taking part to make sure that they get the skills they need for the jobs that are available. Program coordinators and Indigenous councils ensure participants gain practical, hands-on experience. One of the major projects involves refurbishing a number of dongas in Napranum to create housing for young residents in the community. This includes apprentices and trainees, many of whom are currently living in overcrowded accommodation. The project gives job seekers practical skills and hands-on experience, at the same time providing much needed extra accommodation in the community. The project is being administered by Western Cape College and is due for completion in early 2010. These programs are critical to help us reach our goal of ensuring ongoing sustainable economic development for Queensland Indigenous communities. It is part of the Bligh government’s commitment to supporting and creating jobs for Queenslanders throughout the whole state. Local Government, Masterclasses Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships) (10.25 am): On 23 September we held the first Financial Management and Sustainability Masterclass of its kind in the country for Queensland councils. The inaugural workshop was held in Longreach, followed by masterclasses hosted by the Redland City Council and Cairns Regional Council. Mayors and senior councillors attended this intensive day to come to grips with best practice financial management for local government. The feedback we have received has been very encouraging. Mayors and councillors are also appreciative of the state supporting them on such important areas as asset management, engagement, governance and financial planning. I am today pleased to announce that I will be expanding this program to a fourth masterclass which will be hosted by the Rockhampton Regional Council on 1 December 2009. In total, some 120 mayors and senior councillors will have gone through this training program. The Rockhampton workshop will focus on community planning, financial management and asset management—three critical components in future-proofing the local government sector. An asset management advancement program was recently distributed to all local councils to assist them in moving through the process of developing asset management plans for the many important infrastructure assets they look after, from roads and bridges, community buildings and stormwater drainage to zoos and airports. The Bligh government is delivering on its commitment to build strong, sustainable councils and to work with the sector to expand its skills and knowledge.

MOTION

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

1. Sessional Order 5, after ‘Election of Speaker—each member’— Insert (in text in column 1 and times in column 3)— ‘Extension of Time, by consent of a majority of the House, without debate

- Motions and Second reading Debates 10 minutes - Question Time 2 minutes’. 2902 Motion 28 Oct 2009

2. New Standing Order 60A (Absence of Minister)— After Standing Order 60— Insert— ‘60A. Absence of Minister The Leader of the House shall inform the House whenever a Minister will be absent for either Questions without Notice or an entire sitting day.’. 3. Standing Order 103 (Procedure for setting question and calling a division)— Standing Order 103, heading, ‘setting’— Omit, Insert— ‘putting’. 4. Standing Order 103 (Procedure for setting question and calling a division)— Standing Order 103(4)— Omit, Insert— ‘(4) If there has already been a division in respect of that order of the day or motion, and there is no intervening debate, the Speaker may order the division bells to be rung for one minute.’. 5. Standing Order 115 (Rules for questions)— Standing Order 115(b)— Omit, Insert— ‘(b) Questions shall not contain: (i) lengthy or subjective preambles; (ii) arguments; (iii) inferences; (iv) imputations; (v) hypothetical matters; or (vi) names of persons, unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible and can be authenticated.’. 6. Standing Order 125 (Petitions referred to a Minister and responses tabled and published)— Standing Order 125(3)— Omit, Insert— ‘(3) The Minister shall forward a response (‘ministerial response’) to a petition to the Clerk within 30 days and the Clerk shall: (a) table the response; (b) forward a copy of the response to the member who presented the petition; (c) forward a copy of the response to the principal petitioner; and (d) ensure the response is published on the Parliament’s Internet Website.’. 7. Standing Order 125 (Petitions referred to a Minister and responses tabled and published)— After Standing Order 125(5)— Insert— ‘(6) If a Minister can not comply with subsection (3), the Minister shall— (a) within 30 days after the petition is presented, forward to the Clerk an interim response and the Minister’s reasons for not complying within 30 days; and (b) within 3 months after the petition is presented, forward to the Clerk a final response.’. 8. Standing Order 128 (Procedure on presentation of Bill)— Standing Order 128(5) and 128(8), ‘That the Bill be read a second time’— Omit, Insert— ‘That the Bill be now read a second time’. 9. New Standing Order 129A (Cognate Bills and time for second reading debate)— After Standing Order 129— Insert— ‘129A. Cognate Bills and time for second reading debate Where the House determines that several Bills may be considered at the same time for their second reading stage: (a) the time allotted for the Leader of the Opposition (or nominee) may, at their discretion, be shared with another Member; (b) however, the total time allotted for the Leader of the Opposition (or nominee) and the other Member with whom the time has been shared, shall not exceed the total time that would have been available for both the Leader of the Opposition (or nominee) and that Member had the time not been shared.’. 10. Standing Order 131 (Question for second reading)— Standing Order 131, ‘That the Bill be read a second time’— Omit, Insert— ‘That the Bill be now read a second time’. 28 Oct 2009 Motion 2903

11. New Standing Order 166A (Adjournment of second reading debate for Annual Appropriation Bills)— After Standing Order 166— Insert— ‘166A. Adjournment of second reading debate for Annual Appropriation Bills Standing Order 128(8) does not apply to the Annual Appropriation Bills. After the member who presented the Annual Appropriation Bills completes their second reading speech further debate on the question “That the Bill be now read a second time” shall be adjourned for at least one whole calendar day.’. 12. Standing Order 181 (Questions on notice prior to the hearings)— Standing Order 181(4) and 181(5)— Omit, Insert— ‘(4) The rules applying to questions on notice and questions without notice contained in Chapter 20 also apply to questions on notice prior to estimates hearings. (5) The Chairperson of the committee has the same power as the Speaker regarding questions.’. 13. Standing Order 181 (Questions on notice prior to the hearings)— After Standing Order 181(7)— Insert— ‘(8) Answers to questions on notice are deemed to be authorised for release by the estimates committee and published upon the commencement of the committee’s hearing, unless the committee expressly orders otherwise.’. 14. Standing Order 216 (Presentation of committee reports or other documents after dissolution of the House)— Standing Order 216, ‘If a committee’— Omit, Insert— ‘If a committee,’. 15. Standing Order 231 (Anticipating discussion)— After Standing Order 231(2)— Insert— ‘(3) This rule shall not apply to prevent questions or debate which anticipate debate of the annual Appropriation Bills.’. 16. New Standing Order 253A (Power to order withdrawal of disorderly member from the Chamber for up to one hour)— After Standing Order 253— Insert— ‘253A. Power to order withdrawal of disorderly member from the Chamber for up to one hour (1) The Speaker may, after warning a member who in the Speaker’s opinion continues to be grossly disorderly, order that member to withdraw immediately from the Chamber for up to one hour. (2) A member ordered to withdraw immediately from the Chamber under this Standing Order must do so forthwith, and must, during the period nominated by the Speaker (up to one hour) remain absent from the Chamber. (3) Any member who having been ordered to withdraw under this Standing Order fails to comply, may without further warning, be named by the Speaker under SO 254.’. 17. Standing Order 263B (Leave of absence of member for more than 21 consecutive sitting days)— Standing Order 263B, heading, after ‘days’— Insert footnote reference no. and the following footnote— ‘Section 72(1)(m) of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 provides that a member’s seat becomes vacant if the member is absent without the Assembly’s permission from the Assembly for more than 21 consecutive sitting days, whether over one or more session.’ 18. Standing Order 269 (Procedure for other matters)— Standing Order 269(5)— Omit, Insert— ‘(5) The Speaker in considering the matter may request further information from the complainant, the person the subject of the allegations or any other person.’. 19. Standing Order 272 (Impartiality and conflicts of interest)— Standing Order 272(4), ‘Leader of Opposition’— Omit, Insert— ’Leader of the Opposition’. 20. Standing Order 283 (Recommendation and report by the ethics committee)— Standing Order 283(b)— Omit, Insert— ‘(b) that a response by the person who made the submission, in terms specified in the report and agreed to by the person or corporation and the ethics committee, be incorporated in the Record of Proceedings or published in some other manner.’. 21. Standing Order 287 (Arrest of strangers)— Standing Order 287(2) and 287(3)— Omit, Insert— ’(2) The Speaker shall report to the House when any person has been taken into custody pursuant to (1). (3) A person taken into custody pursuant to (1) can only be discharged from custody by direction of the Speaker or order of the House.’. 2904 Speaker’s Statements 28 Oct 2009

22. Schedule 5 (Guidelines for the Protection of Whistleblowers)— Schedule 5(5), ‘(d)’, ‘(e)’ and ‘(f)’— Omit, Insert— ‘(a)’, ‘(b)’ and ‘(c)’. 23. New Schedule 6 (Instructions to Particular Committees)— After Schedule 5— Insert— ‘SCHEDULE 6—INSTRUCTIONS TO PARTICULAR COMMITTEES (1) The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, pursuant to its area of responsibility detailed in s.103(2)(a) of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001, is to include in its Alert Digests compliance with Part 4 of the Legislative Standards Act 1992 (Explanatory Notes).’. 24. Standing Order 13 (Appointment of Acting Speaker)— Standing Order 13(2), ‘a Minister’— Omit, Insert— ‘a Minister or Leader of the House’. 25. Standing Order 81 (Order discharged)— Standing Order 81(3), ‘A Minister’— Omit, Insert— ‘A Minister or Leader of the House’. 26. Standing Order 159 (Urgent Bills)— Standing Order 159(1), ‘A Minister’— Omit, Insert— ‘A Minister or Leader of the House’. 27. Standing Order 159 (Urgent Bills)— Standing Order 159(3), ‘a Minister’— Omit, Insert— ‘a Minister or Leader of the House’. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

LAW, JUSTICE AND SAFETY COMMITTEE

Annual Report Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (10.27 am): I lay upon the table of the House the 2008-09 annual report of the Law, Justice and Safety Committee. This report details the activities in the reporting year of the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee of the 52nd Parliament and the current committee, both as the Law, Justice and Safety Committee and previously as the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee. I express my appreciation for the work of all members and staff of both the current and previous committee. I commend the report to the House. Tabled paper: Law, Justice and Safety Committee, Annual Report 2008-09, Report No. 72 [1159].

NOTICE OF MOTION

A1GP Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.28 am): I give notice that I will move— That this House notes the undertaking given to the House by the Minister for Child Safety and Sport on 15 September that he had satisfied himself the A1GP would compete in the SuperGP; and calls on the Minister to provide to Parliament, within 24 hours, all the information the Minister relied upon to make that statement.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS

Visitors to the Gallery Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, today we will be visited by the Riverbrooke on Coomera Residents Association, who will be in the public gallery, and also the Nundah Probus Club from the electorate of Clayfield. The schools who will visit us today are the Palmwoods State School in the electorate of Glass House and the Kedron State School in the electorate of Clayfield. 28 Oct 2009 Questions Without Notice 2905

African Art and Cultural Exhibition I would like to draw to honourable members’ attention the African art and cultural exhibition in the foyer of the Parliamentary Annexe. The exhibition has been organised by the Queensland African Communities Council. Comprising more than 200 items, the exhibition will be officially opened at 6 pm this evening and continues until Thursday of next week. This exhibition is an excellent example of how Parliament House can be a venue promoting awareness and understanding of the cultural diversity represented in the Queensland community. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Sale of Public Assets, Information Campaign Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.30 am): My first question without notice is to the Premier. I have here a copy of the government’s myths and facts flyer for which Queensland taxpayers are paying $1.9 million for the privilege of receiving this week, and I ask: who wrote this material? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. Clearly, as I outlined yesterday, the people of Queensland have a right to have the facts and information that they need to make well- informed judgements and participate in what I think is a very important debate about the future of Queensland’s economic prosperity. This material, of course, was put together with a combination of information from Treasury, and I and my office looked at it. As honourable members would expect, it has been through a number of edits to get it right and to make sure that it does present material that communicates the information in a way that is easily understood. What we have seen over the last two days is very interesting. Yesterday I took the opportunity in an opinion piece in the Courier-Mail to outline why the government is taking this action and the action that we are taking. What we saw this morning was a piece, allegedly written by the Leader of the Opposition—but if I were him, I would claim someone else authored it—which was a long moan about borrowings. Did we see any view at all about what borrowings should not be undertaken? No. Did we see one single idea put forward about how borrowings should be or could be reduced? No. What we see from the government and from our side of politics is a clear plan, a strategy to grow Queensland’s economy; a clear plan that is about building Queensland, about reducing debt and about reducing the deficit. What do we have opposite? No idea, not a clue. Not only did the Leader of the Opposition recently miss the opportunity on five separate occasions on Stateline to outline his economic plan; he took the opportunity in today’s newspaper to spend five columns saying nothing. He does not have a strategy—not one strategy. I can tell him how our government is taking Queensland forward. We are growing it through an infrastructure program. We are investing in new industries. We are investing in employment programs and in training and we are selling down some of our assets so that we can reduce debt, reduce borrowings and bring the budget back to surplus. Sale of Public Assets, Information Campaign Mr LANGBROEK: My second question without notice is also to the Premier. Will the Premier explain why large parts of her government’s myths and facts brochure have been lifted word for word from a Labor Party document, which I table, that was published two weeks prior? Why has she authorised this sham campaign in clear breach of the Government Advertising Code of Conduct? Tabled paper: Queensland Labor document titled ‘Information for ALP Members, Answering concerns about the assets sale’ [1160]. Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: The House will come to order. We will wait for order in the House. Ms BLIGH: I will not be taking advice on advertising guidelines from the glamour boy from Surfers Paradise. This is the man who thought that faking an email to justify public expenditure on glamour shots of himself was the way that business should be done. What is clear is that the government is putting forward an information campaign. Many of the facts that are outlined in this information have been in the public arena for months. I have written to individuals. I have written to Labor Party branches. I have written to unions. I have written to organisations. The information is available in Hansard. The information is available to anybody who is seeking to educate themselves about it. However, not everybody— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Resume your seat. I will wait for the House to come to order. Order! Ms BLIGH: It is important that wherever people live in a state as big and decentralised as Queensland that we provide information to them. Our government has a plan to build Queensland’s economy. We are building infrastructure right across the state. We are investing in education and training to grow our economic performance. We have a plan to make sure that Queenslanders know about those things which matter to them. 2906 Questions Without Notice 28 Oct 2009

What we know is that those opposite do not have a plan. There is no secret whatsoever about the fact that those opposite have no strategy whatsoever. We have a plan to reduce debt. We have a plan— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seat. I will wait for the House to come to order. Ms BLIGH: We certainly will not need to take advice on honesty from the member who was sacked for dishonesty by his own Premier. This government is building Queensland— Mr Hobbs: Is that right? Ms BLIGH: The member for Warrego asks if I am correct in that assessment. I would refer members to the newspaper reports of Friday, 13 February and Saturday, 14 February in 1998. It makes a cracker of a read. I would be happy to distribute it in the House because there may be some people here who have not heard about his outrageous performance. I am happy to letterbox it. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: There are too many interjections. I am having difficulty hearing the Premier. Ms BLIGH: My government has a clear plan to build a stronger Queensland economy, to continue building infrastructure, to retire debt and to reduce the deficit so that we can continue to do the things that Queenslanders need: more services and more building projects to cope with a growing population. Vegetation Management Mr KILBURN: My question without notice is to the Premier. I ask: what is the government doing to protect high-value regrowth and preserve catchments flowing into the Great Barrier Reef? Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrego! Ms BLIGH: You only have to say two words in this place—vegetation and management—and put them together in the same sentence and they go off like two-bob clocks. I am very pleased that the vegetation management bill was passed by the parliament last night. It is a piece of legislation that I think gets the balance right between protecting the environment and ensuring economic development where appropriate. It now allows us to sit down with farmers’ groups right across the state and start working through with them how this bill can be implemented. I am pleased to advise that the minister responsible, the Hon. Stephen Robertson, and his department have already had a substantial number of opportunities to discuss this and they will be putting it in place in a systematic way across Queensland. What an extraordinary set of circumstances we saw last night. Fresh from voting against protecting the Great Barrier Reef this month we saw the so-called Liberal National Party— Opposition members interjected. Ms BLIGH: I take it from their comments that if we debated it longer they would have voted for it. Ms Spence: Eight hours wasn’t enough. Ms BLIGH: Eight hours was not enough. If one needed any more evidence of the death of the Queensland Liberal Party, it was here last night. Vale, Queensland Liberal Party, RIP. The National Party rolled right over the top of it. Let us remind ourselves what the Leader of the Opposition said in 2004— when he was a Liberal—about vegetation management. He said it had been a long time coming. He said— It is a positive stance ... that the Liberal Party has held for a long time and I am happy to see its adoption ... He was right. The Liberal Party did hold to those values. The Liberal Party had held them for a long time and it stood up for them against the National Party and here in this House. Yet last night the Leader of the Opposition could not even speak in the debate. He could not find a single argument to put forward for his change of heart and for the fact that he had led his Liberal Party straight down the old National Party path. Where are the true Liberals of Queensland? The true Liberals of this state must be scratching their heads. Mr Springborg interjected. Ms BLIGH: They are in the member’s party, the old agrarian socialists. It is time the member for Clayfield put up his hand for the true Liberals of Queensland. Come on; it is time we saw the member for Clayfield represent the Liberals of Queensland and take on the challenge, because no-one else is up to it. Those who are there have rolled over and they cannot be recovered. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would remind ministers that in the past I have ruled about referring to people who are absent from the chamber. I want to make sure that we are not going down that path this morning. Mr Robertson: All 14 of them, Mr Speaker? 28 Oct 2009 Questions Without Notice 2907

Mr SPEAKER: In the past I have ruled that it is established parliamentary practice that we do not refer to people who are absent. There can be reasons—good reasons at times—why people are absent from the chamber. Government Owned Corporations Mr SPRINGBORG: My question without notice is to the Premier. The Auditor-General report tabled yesterday contained this quote from the Treasury department— ... Treasury has led, and is currently leading, detailed reviews of GOC sectors that go to the core of the purposes and objectives of State ownership ... I ask the Premier: is the Treasury department conducting detailed reviews of state ownership of the electricity generation GOCs? Ms BLIGH: The answer to the honourable member’s question is no. What Treasury is doing, which is well known, is working with a team of financial advisers to fully scope the appropriate structure for the sale of the assets that are to be put into the market. Mr Springborg: So no other GOCs? Ms BLIGH: The answer I gave to the honourable member is no. We have made our position on this very clear. What we do not know is the position of those opposite. Sometimes some of them say that they are opposed; at other times some of them go into boardrooms and say, ‘Of course we are not opposed.’ When they want to curry favour with their business backers, they tell them that they support the privatisation of public assets. In fact, they went to the last election with an economic strategy which said they would privatise commercial businesses. However now, when they get the chance, they go running. Again, do we need any further evidence of the National Party’s dominance and domination of the once great Queensland Liberal Party? I remember when the Queensland Liberal Party had very strong views about how to effectively manage the public sector and ensure that people got the best value for services. One of the things they used to say regularly was that we should ask hard questions about whether public sector monopolies were the best way to do that. They have rolled completely. At least that is what they say in here when they think it suits them politically. Of course, we know that they have runs on the board from when they were last in government. We know that on a number of occasions they have said in the public realm that they support privatisation, but now they are calling out from the other side as if they oppose something. The member for Southern Downs— Mr Springborg interjected. Ms BLIGH: What we know and what the people of Queensland know is that our government will not be slashing jobs from the public sector to back up crazy election commitments. People need to remember that the three per cent efficiency dividend proposed by the member for Southern Downs was not to reduce debt or recover a surplus; it was only to pay for his crazy, wacky election commitments. His strategy had no policy for retiring debt and no policy for returning the budget to surplus. My election commitment was to build Queensland and that is what we are doing in every region. We promised to protect jobs and build Queensland, and that is what we are doing. We will keep doing it. (Time expired) SuperGP Ms O’NEILL: My question without notice is for the Premier. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition questioned the independence of the man appointed to conduct a review of the SuperGP event. Can the Premier outline for the House why this man was chosen to conduct the review? Ms BLIGH: I think everybody in this House wants to get to the bottom of some of the events leading up to the withdrawal of the A1GP. I think taxpayers deserve answers and I am confident they will get those answers, particularly from the work of the Auditor-General and his team and the work of David Williams in terms of where we go from here. I was very disappointed to see those opposite use this House yesterday to smear the reputation of David Williams. They questioned his integrity and his independence, saying that he was a Labor mate. Let us look at this man’s background. For many years David Williams has served both sides of politics in a number of public sector jobs. In 1985 he was appointed to run the Tasmanian department of sport and recreation. Which government was leading Tasmania in 1985? It was the government of that well-known Labor mate Robin Gray. He was the Liberal Premier of Tasmania in 1985. In 1996 that great bastion of Labor politics Rob Borbidge went on to appoint David Williams as the chief executive of Queensland Events Corporation. Mr Williams was described in this House as having ‘extensive experience in this field, and his knowledge and hands-on experience of major event management is significant’. Who said that? Someone who I think would be proud to be called the cream of the tory crop—none other than Bruce Davidson. Mr Williams has served Labor governments, but he has also served Liberal and National governments, as many public servants do throughout their working careers. 2908 Questions Without Notice 28 Oct 2009

We know that the member for Surfers Paradise will stop at nothing to bring this great motor-racing event and his own backyard of the Gold Coast into disrepute. This morning the front page of the Gold Coast Bulletin showed clear evidence of the LNP’s plot to undermine this racing event. There is Councillor Susie Douglas plotting to kill off the event while at the same time telling people that she is a supporter of it. Did Ms Douglas do this with the knowledge of the local member? Where does the local member stand? Does he believe the council should be backing international events in his backyard? What we know is that— Mr Langbroek: I should sit over there and you should sit here. Ms BLIGH: That is very unlikely to happen. We know that the member for Surfers Paradise is pathologically incapable of backing the Gold Coast. He will not support light rail and he will not support an international motor race. Those opposite will not support Carrara Stadium. When the LNP started, it was going to have its headquarters at the Gold Coast. Now they have a leader, but they still cannot get their headquarters at the Gold Coast. When they need a champion, this man will be found wanting. (Time expired) Credit Rating Mr NICHOLLS: My question is to the Premier. The Labor Party’s information to members flyer claims that the restoration of Queensland’s AAA credit rating depends on the sale of assets. The budget papers make no such claim. If the budget papers cannot make this claim, why is the Labor Party making it now in this document and has the Premier lost the ability to tell the difference between fact and fantasy? Ms BLIGH: I am a bit disappointed to note that the shadow Treasurer is so unfamiliar with the budget papers. Mr Fraser: But he would make a good leader. Ms BLIGH: But he would make a good leader. I think we could say that—a good Liberal leader. I refer the shadow minister to the budget strategy and outlook paper, and I refer him to page 14 where I think he will find a very instructive graph. What the graph outlines clearly is the credit rating range that will be assessed by the credit rating agencies. In relation to this, it makes the following comments— This will go a long way toward reducing the current level of indebtedness of the State and demonstrate to ratings agencies and financial markets the Government’s willingness to reduce debt and return the State to a solid fiscal position. I would refer the member to the budget papers. What is absolutely clear is that without these sales Queensland’s AAA credit rating will not be restored. Again, I challenge those opposite to give us one suggestion—just one; we do not ask them to solve the whole problem—for how they believe we should reduce state debt. Mr Seeney: We should solve your problem—the problem you created. Ms BLIGH: No. Mr Seeney: You want answers from us to solve your problem! Mr Lucas: You weren’t the solution to their problem, brother. They worked that out quick smart. Mr Seeney: You have no idea! You ran up the debt and you have no idea. You’re asking us! Mr SPEAKER: Premier, resume your seat. There is too much interjection on both sides. Ms BLIGH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the member for Callide for his frank admission that he never anticipates being on this side of the chamber. If those opposite present themselves as an alternative government, they have an obligation to come up with some ideas. They can criticise, they can carp, they can whinge, they can moan. On this side of the chamber we are going to get on with the job of building Queensland. They can whinge about it all they like, but we are building this state, we are growing our economy and we are taking the tough decisions necessary. People know that they stand for nothing. I say again to the member for Callide that his lack of ideas and the lack of ideas of his team are very much his own problem. We understand that Queensland is growing. Queensland needs more roads. It needs more hospitals. It needs to extend its electricity network. It needs to build new schools. And that is what we will do. Sunshine Coast, Health Services Ms DARLING: My question without notice is to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health. The Deputy Premier and Minister for Health recently attended a meeting of the Sunshine Coast Local Medical Association. Could the Deputy Premier please update the House as to what the Bligh government is doing to strengthen health services on the Sunshine Coast? 28 Oct 2009 Questions Without Notice 2909

Mr LUCAS: I recently attended a meeting of the Sunshine Coast local branch of the Australian Medical Association. It was a very well-attended meeting and an instructive meeting. We had a wide- ranging question and answer session on a number of issues including and in particular the Sunshine Coast University Hospital but certainly not restricted only to that. I certainly can acknowledge that many doctors and indeed many residents on the Sunshine Coast are disappointed with the change in timetable for the Sunshine Coast University Hospital. But I want to make it very clear, as I have repeatedly, that the government remains committed to the construction of that hospital and that includes a $1.57 billion commitment to build 450 beds at the university hospital, expanding to 650 beds in the future. We will purchase beds in the new private hospital, a co-located facility at the Kawana site, by 2013. In other words, what we have announced will deliver beds sooner to the Sunshine Coast, in the first instance, in 2013 than it otherwise would have. At Nambour Hospital at present people would know that we have already delivered an extra 30 beds, with 96 more due in 2011. One of the real concerns that I have when I read some of the media reports on the Sunshine Coast is the way that the LNP has sought to hijack this issue for its own gain. The so-called Sunshine Coast University Hospital Action Group, which is run out of the office of the member for Kawana— Mr Bleijie: It’s a community group chaired independently. Have some respect. Mr LUCAS: Chaired independently—I thank the honourable member for his interjection. I go to the minutes of one of the recent meetings where they talk about Jarrod Bleijie’s report. The minutes state— Jarrod had a executive meeting with LNP members last week and they pledged their support ... They got stuck into the council. Then in his report he continues— If a sick child was used media coverage would be immense. That is what the local member said in his report to this group. That is what his encouragement was. His report also said— Suggested postcards to bombard Premier’s office. They talked about how people were going to get to know about it and what they are going to talk about. He has compromised this organisation totally. They are part of a political action campaign on the Sunshine Coast. Here we have the shadow minister saying that he was going to scrap the Queensland Children’s Hospital—clearly they did not have too much of a concern about treating sick kids there—so they could build the Sunshine Coast University Hospital. Then he has been caught out with his strategy—find a sick kid to advance the case. The honourable member commented the other day about conflicts of interest. He ought to know a lot more about conflicts of interest because this is a rolled gold example of one. Tabled paper: Extract from the SCUHAG website, dated 28 October 2009, relating to a general meeting of the Sunshine Coast University Hospital Action Group on 12 October 2009 [1161]. Minister for Sport Mr SEENEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Sport. I refer to a letter from the Premier’s director-general that was published in the Auditor-General’s report tabled in the House yesterday which states that each minister has a charter of goals and that ‘this year each minister’s charter explicitly states the Premier’s expectations of the minister in his or her portfolio agencies’. Will the minister publicly release his charter and advise how he demonstrated to the Premier that the expectations in that charter have been met with regard to the A1GP or has the A1GP debacle made the minister’s charter of goals not worth the paper it is written on? Mr REEVES: I thank the honourable member for the question. Once again, it gives me an opportunity to tell people how successful the SuperGP was on the Gold Coast considering the economic circumstances and considering what occurred. If someone were to have told me 10 days prior to the event on the weekend that we would get over 200,000 people, I would not have believed them. We worked full steam ahead to achieve what we did on the Gold Coast. Thanks to the work of the V8 Supercars and thanks to the work of the promoters and to the legends, the Dick Johnsons, the Glenn Setons and the Colin Bonds of the world, who at the last moment put up their hand for motor racing on the Gold Coast and said that they would come to the event. As I said, the attendance was over 200,000 which was pleasing considering the lead-up to the event. The level of attendance shows that the event is well supported and has a future on the Gold Coast. The V8 drivers, the teams and the event promoters worked tirelessly to deliver the alternative race program in the space of a few days. All involved are to be commended. 2910 Questions Without Notice 28 Oct 2009

In addition, the event could not be staged without the outstanding support of the legends or the loyal volunteers—over 1,300 local volunteers, many of them who have been volunteering year in, year out. I met a number of them over the weekend and particularly on Sunday night when the organisers put on an event for the volunteers because of their great performance. Some people have been volunteering since the early days. I want to commend particularly a gentleman called Alan Young, who is the chief fire officer of the event. For 18 years he has been working at the Gold Coast SuperGP, formerly Indy. In fact, he got an award from overseas for all his work when the Indy was on. Once we get those reviews, I hope those opposite finally get behind the Gold Coast and support the event, because in the 20th year it will be an excellent event. I look forward to all of the support from those opposite. They are happy enough to come and happy enough to look at the event, but they are not happy enough to praise the Gold Coast. Queensland Economy Mr SHINE: My question is to the Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development. Can the Treasurer advise the House of the government’s plan to reduce state debt? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative plans? Mr FRASER: I thank the member for Toowoomba North for his question and for his concern for the long-term future of the Queensland economy and the state of the state’s finances. He, like every other government member of this House, supports making the tough decisions and knows that the burden of being in government is making decisions for the future—to stump up and confront the challenges and make the choices, to put forward a plan and to prosecute it in the public arena. That is exactly what this government is doing—in direct contrast to what the members opposite are doing. They continue to propagate the myth that they somehow do not support the plan that we have put in place to put these assets to the market. They continue to propagate this myth, as the Leader of the Opposition did yesterday when he came in after question time and spent 10 minutes moaning about the problems and again offering no solutions for the future. He offered it up for budget time, offered it up for estimates, offered it up again, and what did we get? We got 10 minutes of puffery and wind. That has only been matched this morning by that pathetic effort in the opinion pages of the Courier-Mail where, as the Premier said, he took five columns to say nothing. The nature of an opinion piece is that you are meant to have an opinion. You are meant to put forward a proposition. It is an opinion page; it is not an agony aunt column where you write in with your problems, define your problems and have a whinge about your lot in life. The reality is that the Leader of the Opposition has a clear view on this, and we only have to go back and check out just how far he has bankrupted himself in his slavish devotion to the new National Party on the other side of the chamber. While at the moment he pretends to say that he thinks the state government, the taxpayer, should buy the next set of coal wagons for Xstrata, if we go back and check the Hansard from a couple of years ago, back in 2005 the Leader of the Opposition made a stunning contribution to a debate on the education bill at the time. Members might recall that there was an application by that great corporate institution ABC Learning to be able to profit from the provision of education in the state. This government thought that the provision of education was a public service that should be kept as such. What did the Leader of the Opposition—who says that he believes in public enterprise—say? Back in 2005 he said— I say to the minister at the outset that we have no problem with the concept of a school from which profits may be returned to shareholders ... It is all right to return it to shareholders when you are running a school but, no, the state of Queensland should protect the Xstratas and Rios of the world. What did the Leader of the Opposition say? He said— There is no use standing up here and saying that schools that pay profits to shareholders are bad schools ... Moreover, such an ideological attack erodes the options that are available to students and their parents when considering educational options. ... ’Profit’ is no longer a dirty word in education as the market has progressed ... How the Leader of the Opposition has progressed. That was only a few short years ago. But what has happened? He has been mowed down along with the rest of the Libs—just as in the debate last night with all the trees that are going to get the DC-10. What have they taken? They have hooked up the chain to the dozer and they have mowed down all the Liberals. It is a bit early for me to say ‘I remember when’, but I remember when there used to be a Liberal Party in this state. Alcohol Interlocks Ms SIMPSON: My question is to the Minister for Transport. It has been three years and three transport ministers since Peter Beattie promised that alcohol interlocks would be fitted on repeat drink driver’s vehicles but nothing has happened. Minister, isn’t this another example of the Labor government’s record as repeat offenders in breaking its promises? 28 Oct 2009 Questions Without Notice 2911

Ms NOLAN: I thank the honourable member for the question—a question I note that she told ABC Radio yesterday was going to be asked but it was not a sufficient priority to be asked until today. I am enormously concerned about the number of deaths that we continue to see in this state as a result of tragic accidents on our roads. Queensland’s road toll today stands at 288, which is 16 higher than the same time last year. This is a tragedy that is affecting families and friends of people right across this state, and this government has a very strong commitment to taking measures to reduce the road toll. Since the Road Safety Summit in 2006, this government has led a number of changes in the area of road safety. We have introduced young drivers reforms, which are leading to young people going out on the roads for the first time as more experienced and better drivers. In the area of drink driving, we have made some significant changes. We have introduced immediate licence suspensions for people who are caught high-level drink driving. We have implemented powers to impound and confiscate vehicles from repeat offenders, which has seen 344 people losing their cars for drink driving. We have introduced cumulative disqualifications for people who have licence suspensions. All of those things are significant changes. Nonetheless, I am concerned that many Queenslanders are still not getting the idea that you endanger yourself and your fellow road users when you drink and drive. This government will implement the introduction of alcohol interlocks in vehicles of repeat drink drivers. I have given direction to my department to implement that as soon as possible. There are some implementation issues in that these machines have to be regularly calibrated, and that is something that is difficult to do in a state as decentralised as this one. But I say to the people of Queensland that drink driving is dangerous and is not acceptable. Members of the community need to understand that this endangers themselves and others and that this next step will now be implemented.

South Stradbroke Island Ms CROFT: My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability. Earlier this year I sponsored a petition calling for an extension of the South Stradbroke Island Conservation Park. Can the minister advise the House if she has considered calls to protect more of this island? Ms JONES: I would like to thank the honourable member for Broadwater for her tireless campaigning to see more of South Stradbroke Island protected for conservation. When she was first elected as the member for Broadwater, only around 50 per cent of South Stradbroke Island was a conservation park and protected, but I am very pleased to inform the House that that figure is now up to 60 per cent, and that is no doubt because of the great work that she has been doing in campaigning for that. We have been identifying areas of South Stradbroke Island which are suitable for conservation. This process has involved us identifying suitable state land and working with the Gold Coast City Council to identify council land which is available. I also want to make it very clear to the House— because I have heard some interjections from those opposite—that this process of identifying suitable land for conservation is outside of the independent decision of the Gold Coast City Council to purchase Tipplers Resort, which is actually a commercial lease. So we have got very good news. In continuing on the proud record of the member for Broadwater, I am also very pleased to announce today that as part of this process 10 parcels of state land totalling more than 250 hectares has been identified to convert to conservation park. Most importantly for the member for Broadwater and everybody who signed her petition, this also includes the land which had been previously earmarked for a desalination plant. This land will now be conserved for future generations under conservation park. This will also safeguard essential habitat for the wallum sedge frog, the wallum froglet and the wallum rocket frog. In addition to this, the Gold Coast City Council has also identified 50 hectares which we can add to this area for protection. I acknowledge the great work of the member for Broadwater in this regard. It is my great pleasure to update the House that we have protected over eight million hectares of national park in Queensland, which now means we have the largest national park estate of any country in Australia—any state in Australia. I am pleased to take on any country in the world on this, too. Can I say that this is no thanks to those opposite. We have heard them carry on here this morning. Everyone in the public gallery and everyone in the press gallery should not walk away from here not knowing that those opposite voted against protecting the Great Barrier Reef last sitting. Last night they voted against protecting remnant vegetation in another bill. The Liberal Party is dead. It does not matter if they have been knocked over by a plane or a tractor, the reality is that they have sold out. They do not care about— Opposition members interjected. Ms JONES: Listen to them. The truth hurts, but the reality is that when the Leader of the Opposition had the opportunity to show leadership, to stand up for the Great Barrier Reef and to stand up for vegetation management laws, he failed. 2912 Questions Without Notice 28 Oct 2009

Bushfire Preparedness Mr MALONE: My question is to the Minister for Emergency Services. Can the minister detail the number and dates of the hazard reduction ‘cool burns’ that were successfully carried out in the Berserker wilderness area of Rockhampton in the past two years, including the total area involved? Mr ROBERTS: I try to remember as many facts and figures as I can before I come into parliament, but being expected to know precisely the number of burns that have been undertaken in a particular location is absolutely ridiculous. What I can advise is that, on the information and advice I can recall, in that national park over the last three years there were six prescribed burns undertaken, including two in the past 12 months. The member for Mirani has been seeking every opportunity to undermine what has been an absolutely fantastic and magnificent effort by the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service and Rural Fire Service volunteers during the recent fires in Rockhampton and across other parts of the state. He has also specifically attacked the preparation and planning undertaken by the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service. I receive regular briefings, not just this year but also in the two or so years that I have been Minister for Emergency Services, on the extensive preparations that Queensland Fire and Rescue Service and rural operations undertake in preparation for the fire season. This year in excess of 220 bushfire prepared community meetings were undertaken in at-risk communities across the state. Rural fire brigades have been working proactively with Parks and Wildlife and other government agencies such as Main Roads to undertake as many prescribed burns as is humanly possible in preparation for this season, working with private landholders. On behalf of the fire service I take as an insult to their professionalism and the extensive efforts they put into preparing for bushfires the attacks that the member for Mirani, supported by the Leader of the Opposition, is undertaking in undermining public confidence in the work that the fire service has done. Mr MALONE: Mr Speaker, I find the words of the minister abhorrent. I have always supported and always will support the Rural Fire Service. His words are an insult to me and I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Mirani has asked for a withdrawal. I ask the minister to do so. Mr ROBERTS: I withdraw. I have just got information about some of the prescribed burns in the national park which I would point out to the member is the responsibility of another minister. For example, on 6 March 2009 there were 600 hectares; on 4 March, in New Zealand Gully South, there were 100 hectares; on 7 April 2008 at Berbank Berserker there were 115 hectares. The list goes on where those prescribed burns were undertaken in that national park. Again, I want to emphasise: in the discussions I have had with the experts, which include the volunteers, it is simply impossible to undertake all of the prescribed burns that would be desirable prior to a fire season. There are many instances where prescribed burns have started and have had to be stopped due to changing weather conditions. (Time expired) Bushfire Preparedness Mr HOOLIHAN: My question without notice is also to the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services. I also refer to the bushfires that have been burning across the state, particularly in the electorate of Keppel, in the last month. I would ask the minister to outline what the government has done to assist the QFRS in better responding to those bushfires. Mr ROBERTS: I thank the member for the question. What a contrast. Yesterday in this House the member for Keppel delivered an MPI speech on the fire season, the activities and efforts of the rural fire brigades in particular and all of the other agencies in his region, and so did the member for Mirani. I invite members of the House to read both of those speeches—I acknowledge that the member for Mirani patted people on the back at the outset of his speech—and note the contrast between a very positive, constructive contribution praising the Rural Fire Service and all the other volunteers and agencies on the constructive effort not just during the fire but also in preparation and the speech of the member for Mirani, who again sought to undermine public confidence in the excellent work and preparation undertaken for that fire season, and in particular that fire. There is a significant difference between the attitude and the approach that the Labor government has taken towards the Rural Fire Service and that when the National Party was in power. I will detail some of the initiatives as I answer this question. Firstly, in terms of budget, we have significantly increased the budget for the Rural Fire Service over the last five years. In fact, it has increased by 66 per cent to just over $29 million. That has delivered a number of significant benefits. This year, in particular, there is $4½ million for 34 new or replacement fire appliances and $1.1 million for training of rural fire volunteers. There has been a significant effort of the rural fire division to provide the qualifications and expertise in a formal sense to many more volunteers this year in preparation for the season. There is also money to buy new stations and buildings. 28 Oct 2009 Questions Without Notice 2913

In addition to that, every year for the last six years at least the Labor government has funded around a million dollars a year to rural fire brigades for personal protective equipment at no cost to the brigades, something which is essential for their operations. We have increased the number of vehicles over the last six years from 876 vehicles in 2003 to 946 in October 2009. With regard to slip-on units, which slip on the back of the ute so firefighters can go and fight the fire, there were 1,130 in June 2003 and there are now 2,343 in October 2009. At the last election we went with a policy of Support our Heroes, providing $7.3 million over four years, 14 new additional appliances with 3,000-litre tanks going into those critical areas, the replacement and retrofitting of all appliances with fire protective curtains and the replacement of all petrol-driven pumps with diesel pumps. These are simply examples of the resourcing and the support. It is not just the physical equipment; it is the training and coordination, and the air support that we provide to our Rural Fire Service. When the Nationals were in power, rural fire volunteers fought fires with borrowed tractors, buckets and tree branches. Now they do it with modern equipment. (Time expired) Local Government Reform Mr HOBBS: I have a question for the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning. I refer to the 24 local government submissions for costs incurred due to the state Labor government’s forced council amalgamation model and the Treasurer’s answer to a question on notice which states— This matter is under consideration by the local government division within the Department of Infrastructure and Planning. Six months have passed since these submissions were lodged. When will the state government give these councils a response? Mr HINCHLIFFE: I thank the member for Warrego for his question. I point out to him that his question might relate to the Department of Infrastructure and Planning but, as he would appreciate, after the election this year, led by the Premier, the Queensland government undertook significant reform of the machinery of government to streamline the nature of departments. I think he will find that the question that he asked should have been directed one space to my left, to the Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships. We know that at times the member for Warrego has trouble with remembering all the steps in the process. We know that the member for Warrego had some trouble with remembering the step in the process of putting down the wheels when landing a plane. That certainly tells us a story today— Mr Hobbs: You tell us a story about where it’s up to. Mr HINCHLIFFE: I take that interjection from the member for Warrego. He may not have noticed that I have already explained to him that I am not the Minister for Local Government. If he had taken just one step to the left, he would have got it quite right. The very fact— Mr Fraser: There’s no Liberal Party, too, anymore. Mr HINCHLIFFE: Indeed, I take that interjection from the honourable the Treasurer. I think there are a number of things that the member for Warrego may have missed over the past few years— A government member: Colour TV. Mr HINCHLIFFE: No, he has picked up on that one. There is a range of factors that he may not have picked up on. Mr Fraser: Mobile phones. Mr HINCHLIFFE: No, he knows about mobile phones. Santo Santoro told him about them. I know the member pines for the days when it was just the National Party and the National Party was in power. He remembers those days when they were in power by themselves. The member was here and he was part of some of the ideas that they had at the time. But I suggest that the member take a closer look at the management of government here in the state of Queensland in 2009. (Time expired) Gold Coast Rapid Transit Mrs SMITH: My question is to the Minister for Transport. Infrastructure projects on the Gold Coast continue, with the extension of the rail service to the Burleigh electorate nearing completion. Can the minister update the House on any new achievements for the Gold Coast Rapid Transit project? Ms NOLAN: I thank the honourable member for the question, and I can. The Gold Coast Rapid Transit project is progressing rapidly. Not only will this project inject almost $1 billion into the Gold Coast economy and create 6,300 direct and indirect jobs during construction but it will also fundamentally change the Gold Coast into a public transport city. 2914 Questions Without Notice 28 Oct 2009

The Gold Coast Rapid Transit project is a project of national significance, but I am pleased to advise the House that it has now also been acknowledged internationally. Earlier this month the project was named the Worldwide Project of the Year at the 2009 Light Rail Awards held in London. The project was judged on its many milestones over the past financial year, including the signing of an historic agreement between federal, state and local governments and the completion of the concept design and impact management plan and business case. The Gold Coast Rapid Transit project continues to gain momentum and has started contracting specialist advisers. The advisers are industry leaders in their respective fields and bring with them a wealth of experience. For example, Aurecon is one of the Asia-Pacific areas largest and most experienced multidisciplinary consulting teams. It is contracted to provide engineering advice for the light rail project. Aurecon has an established office in Southport and will be expanding its staff as a direct result of this project. That is more good news for the Gold Coast that, no doubt, the Leader of the Opposition will find a reason to oppose. While experts around the world are acknowledging and supporting this remarkable project, those opposite still cannot decide whether they even support it. Six months after the LNP went to the election with seven different positions on the Gold Coast Rapid Transit project, the Leader of the Opposition, who says he supports the Gold Coast Rapid Transit project, is today listed on the Stop Light Rail website as a supporter of that group. For those who do not know Stop Light Rail is the nimby group making the bizarre claim that light rail will destroy property values. Not only that, this group also claims that it will kill people. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to claim here that he supports the project and down the coast oppose it, he needs to make up his mind. I challenge him to remove his name from the Stop Light Rail website today. The Leader of the Opposition needs to decide where he is at and if he supports it he needs to get his name off Stop Light Rail today. (Time expired) Sunshine Coast, Property Management Agencies Mr WELLINGTON: My question is to the Minister for Transport. Will the minister explain why departmental officers recently decided to stop using existing providers of property management services on the Sunshine Coast and, I understand, did not notify the providers of the department’s dissatisfaction with their service and allow them to submit an offer to continue to provide new property management services? Ms NOLAN: I thank the member for Nicklin for his question. This government, as is well understood, has an enormous infrastructure building program. We are around the state, including on the Sunshine Coast, protecting transport corridors for the future. As a result, the state government owns quite a great deal of property around the state, which we are preserving for future use. The Department of Transport and Main Roads engages real estate agencies on a regional basis to manage properties that have been resumed for future infrastructure projects on behalf of the department prior to those properties’ demolition. These agencies are engaged on commercial terms. Potential agencies are assessed on their ability to manage properties based on their costs—that is, by comparing the fees and services of several agencies on the basis of their location and on their experience. The department, at a regional level, appoints those agencies under the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act. The department recently undertook a review of the managing agencies that it retains across the state because, of course, it is important that these services are professionally provided and that the department gets the best value for money. Over the past few months, six agencies have been given notice that their services are being terminated. Two of those agencies, Town and Country Home Rentals and Cooroy First National, are based on the Sunshine Coast. The department notified those two Sunshine Coast agencies that their appointment as managing agents was to be revoked. An analysis of those agencies also identified a charging regime that was considered excessive for the services that were being offered. The commissions being charged by the Sunshine Coast agencies range from 8.8 per cent to 9.35 per cent to manage departmental properties. The department’s view was that those charges were well above the odds. The department has held discussions with other agencies situated on the coast about managing departmental properties and, based on those discussions, a new agent was appointed in this location at a commission of five per cent. This agent has over five years experience managing property on the Sunshine Coast. All of those steps have been undertaken quite properly under the provisions of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act. I appreciate the member for Nicklin raising that concern with me quite legitimately on behalf of his constituents, but I would say to the House that we have a responsibility for the reasonable management of taxpayers’ money. In this case, this change has been made to ensure that the Department of Transport and Main Roads is getting best value for money on property management. 28 Oct 2009 Comm. of Inquiry (Corruption, Cronyism & Unethical Behaviour) A’ment Bill 2915

Schools, Infrastructure Mrs KEECH: My question is to the Minister for Education and Training. In asking the question, I join with the Speaker in welcoming my constituents from Riverbrooke on Coomera. Given that Albert is one of the fastest growing regions in Australia, can the minister outline how the Bligh government is investing in new schools to service Queensland’s growing population? Mr WILSON: I am happy to do so and debunk yet another one—I think it is No. 16—of the myths that are being put out by my shadow in this portfolio. The claim was that there are five schools in Wide Bay with 1,900 students attending overcrowded classrooms. What are the facts? The facts are that there is one school with one classroom with one extra student over the target size number and in the other school there is another classroom that has been arranged to cater for the other students. What are the facts? We are building Queensland. We are spending our funds building schools. An amount of $19 million is being spent at the Norfolk Village State School on the Gold Coast to cover 720 students; at the Highland Reserve State School, $26 million is being spent on 880 students; at Ormeau Woods, $26 million is being spent for 480 students; at Coomera Springs stage 1, $12 million is being spent covering ultimately up to 11,000 students; and Bayside State College will receive $36 million for 800 students. This government is building for the future in education.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENT

COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY (CORRUPTION, CRONYISM AND UNETHICAL BEHAVIOUR) AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading

Comm. of Inquiry (Corruption, Cronyism & Unethical Behaviour) A’ment Bill Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.30 am): I present a bill for an act to amend the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1950. 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: Commissions of Inquiry (Corruption, Cronyism and Unethical Behaviour) Amendment Bill [1162]. Tabled paper: Commissions of Inquiry (Corruption, Cronyism and Unethical Behaviour) Amendment Bill, explanatory notes [1163]. Second Reading Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.30 am): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. Today I introduce a bill that, if passed, will establish a comprehensive independent commission of inquiry into 11 years of Labor corruption, cronyism and unethical behaviour. Lip-service to accountability, spin and buck-passing have got to stop and the only way to properly investigate suspected cronyism, corruption and the unethical behaviour of the Labor government is to have a commission of inquiry that has the powers, resources and mandate to perform such a function. The Premier has said there is no need for a royal commission as the Crime and Misconduct Commission is a constituted commission of inquiry. However, the CMC has limited powers and resources. The CMC does not have powers to investigate the suspected misconduct of parliamentarians; the CMC can only investigate allegations that may amount to criminal behaviour. The CMC does not have the power to review ministerial decisions unless there is an allegation of a crime being committed. The CMC does not have the power or resources to investigate the judicial appointments process of this Labor government over the past 11 years. The CMC does not have the power or the resources to examine questionable lobbyist dealings which resulted in exorbitant success fees. In light of the time I seek leave to have the rest of my speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The CMC doesn’t have the power, or the resources, to forensically examine every financial decision that corrupt former Labor Minister Gordon Nuttall made. The CMC isn’t properly able to investigate the allegations made by former Labor staffers turned whistleblowers. The extent and multitude of allegations of corruption, cronyism and unethical behaviour of this Labor Government over the past 11 years require a dedicated full time Commission of Inquiry that can solely focus on the murky history of the past decade of Labor rule. 2916 Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against Child.) A’ment Bill 28 Oct 2009

The majority of Queenslanders do not trust this Government and no amount of spin will get to the core of the myriad of allegations raised during more than 11 years of Labor rule. The LNP is not alone in its calls for a Royal Commission— Queensland Council for Civil Liberties vice-president Terry O’Gorman has said a Royal Commission or expanded CMC inquiry is warranted. “A combination of a number of events over the last two weeks is starting to lend some credence for a call for a Royal Commission,” Mr O’Gorman said— “Soon the Premier is going to have so many bushfires in parts of her backyard they are going to add into one fire and something will need to be done.” Urban Development Institute of Australia Queensland Chief Executive Brian Stewart said the “system of using lobbyists” needed examining, rather than “any incidences of unlawful conduct”. “I know most of the people who are involved and I don’t have any question mark about their integrity,” Mr Stewart said. Mr Stewart went on to say “However, what we do need to avoid is that possibility existing because it doesn’t create good circumstances for governance.” It was Tony Fitzgerald himself who said on July 28, 2009, “Ethics are always tested by incumbency. Secrecy was re-established by sham claims that voluminous documents were “Cabinet-in-confidence”. Access can now be purchased, patronage is dispensed, mates and supporters are appointed and retired politicians exploit their political connections to obtain “success fees” for deals between business and government. Queenslanders are now haunted by the ghosts of Nuttall and 11 years of Labor cronyism and allegations of corruption and unethical behaviour. It is time this Government opened the books and opened itself up to a full and independent commission of inquiry. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Fraser, adjourned.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Cape York Peninsula Mr O’BRIEN (Cook—ALP) (11.33 am): One of the great iconic treks that Queenslanders, Australians and people from all over the world undertake is a trip up the Peninsula Development Road to the northern peninsula area to stand at the northernmost point of the Australian continent. I was very disappointed to learn from my parliamentary colleague, Mr Wettenhall, the member for Barron River, that the sign that stands at the northernmost point of the Australian continent has recently been stolen. It is quite a shame. Thousands of people come every year to stand at that point and to have their photograph taken underneath the sign that used to be there. That is why I have undertaken, out of my own electoral allowance, to have the sign replaced. This week I will be in contact with Artcraft, who produces these signs, to order the sign. I will be working in cooperation with the Northern Peninsula Area Regional Council to have the sign replaced. This year was a good year for tourists on Cape York Peninsula. Tourism operators reported strong growth in visitors to the region. That is because the road infrastructure has been improved and some of the camping and tourism destinations and hotels have also been improved. There is room for growth. We also want to see the area around the Pajinka site cleaned up and more services put in for the growing number of people who are coming to the tip to enjoy the iconic place—things like toilets and campgrounds and other facilities for the increasing number of people who are making the trek each year. I thank the member for Barron River for coming into my electorate the week before last.

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

First Reading

Crim. Code (Film. or Possess. Images of Violence Against Child.) A’ment Bill Dr FLEGG (Moggill—LNP) (11.35 am): I present a bill for an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to child exploitation material to provide, in particular, for immediate confiscation of devices used for filming or possessing images of violence against children. 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: Criminal Code (Filming or Possessing Images of Violence Against Children) Amendment Bill [1164]. Tabled paper: Criminal Code (Filming or Possessing Images of Violence Against Children) Amendment Bill, explanatory notes [1165]. 28 Oct 2009 Private Members’ Statements 2917

Second Reading Dr FLEGG (Moggill—LNP) (11.36 am): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The proposed amendments seek to provide for the confiscation of electronic devices used to report or transmit images of bullying against children known as cyberbullying. Cyberbullying and the staging of violent events for the purposes of filming are increasing in prevalence amongst school-age children. An estimated one in 10 school children are victims of cyberbullying. The images are forwarded through electronic technology, mobile phones, computers and social networking sites. One factor that separates cyberbullying from other forms of bullying is that it flourishes in the generational gaps created by technology. While every parent and teacher understands playground bullying, many find changing technology harder to keep pace with than their children do. So cyberbullying establishes itself before parents and teachers are necessarily able to detect the problem. Just this month we have heard reports from an inquest into the suicide of a 14-year-old Lismore boy that bullying, including cyberbullying, played a major part in his decision to end his life. Whereas bullying has also posed potential for physical injuries, cyberbullying opens a Pandora’s box of potential psychological harm. I and the LNP are deeply concerned about this growing trend. We are also aware that to date there are few effective measures. In view of the time, I seek leave to have the balance of my speech be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Powers that exist under current laws are largely unused, and there is an obvious and understandable reluctance to use them as they stand. We want to make it clear to all concerned that bashing or assaulting a child to photograph the assault and circulate it—or put it on the internet—is serious, and the images are ‘child exploitation material’. That’s why we have spelt this out in law for the first time. Cyberbullying also crosses boundaries between school and outside-school times and school grounds. Whereas a child who was once intimidated by a schoolyard bully could close the door of his or her home and leave the bullying behind for the day, now the bullying awaits them as soon as they turn on their computer. The Australian Clearinghouse for Youth Studies reported recently that 65 per cent of 5 to 14 year olds use the internet. Computers are now a part of schooling. A bullied child cannot escape cyberbullying. A motivation in cyberbullying is the technology itself—the ability to transmit the images, to share the bully’s triumph with the bully’s friends, and the victim’s humiliation is multiplied and stored and inescapable. This Bill is based on that motivation. For as long as the bully has unrestricted use of the technology, they can continue the bullying, even when they are no longer physically with the victim. The impact on the psychological wellbeing of the child victim is substantial. Cyberbullying has been cited in various media and coronial reports as a contributor to recent suicides of young people. Cyberbullying is also breaking down the usual predominance of bullying among boys, with girls just as likely—or even more likely—to be subject to cyberbullying. By depriving the bully of the technology, not only is their ability to bully limited, but they lose their ability to continue the trauma experienced by their victim. Confiscating the phone or computer or camera is an effective measure in an area where few measures have been effective. The imposition of a new penalty involving confiscation of the device is a practical response to the problem, and an appropriate one given the ages of some of the people involved. It can also be timely—a necessary element if we are to stop the damage that is being caused. This Bill amends the Criminal Code. In amending section 207A, the definition of child exploitation material, the words ‘under 16 years’ are removed, reverting the definitions for this purpose to those under the Acts Interpretation Act 1954, of 18 years. This ensures all children of school age are covered under this definition. This clause also includes verbal or physical bullying under the definition of child exploitation material. A new part, 228DA, is inserted—Confiscating devices used to commit offences in relation to bullying. This amendment allows a police officer or school principal to confiscate a device that is being used or has just been used to commit an offence involving bullying under sections 228A, 228B, 228C or 228D. These devices would include a mobile phone, a computer or any other electronic device used for the purposes of recording or transmitting of images under these sections. Examples of other devices include a camera or video recorder. The confiscation is based on the reasonable belief of the principal or police officer. Debate, on motion of Mr Dick, adjourned.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Cannonvale Police Station Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (11.38 am): Times are a bit tough in the regions, with tourism and the construction industry both taking a hit from the economic downturn, so now more than ever it is the state government’s infrastructure projects that are providing hope for local workers. One such project, the Cannonvale Police Station, is a great example of the state’s commitment to the Whitsundays when it comes to the development of infrastructure. 2918 Private Members’ Statements 28 Oct 2009

I was very proud when just two weeks ago Minister Neil Roberts and the Police Commissioner attended the official opening of this magnificent new facility. The $11.5 million project is a stand-alone two-storey building with a 24-hour watch-house, a holding area for seized vehicles, a conference room, six interview rooms including a child home-alike room, a CIB Child Protection Investigation Unit and many other features that make it one of the state’s premier police facilities. With a total staff of more than 30 working from the new station, it has brought a new level of police responsiveness and specialisation to the Whitsundays. It also means that recruitment is no longer as difficult as it used to be when police, CIB and administration staff were all working out of the old station that was originally built 30 years ago as a two-officer station. Most importantly, it has been built with a view to catering for the expansion in the population into the future as it has plenty of room to accommodate additional officers and staff. The feedback from members of the public who have toured the new facility has been fantastic. Most cannot believe the state-of-the-art equipment that has come to the area, and many have been complimentary about the forward vision of establishing a station that is capable of absorbing future growth. I thank the minister for opening the station and acknowledge the great work done by all the QPS officers and staff at the station. They leave their homes and families every day so that we can be safe and protected. Their work is often dangerous and demanding and they do and see things that I certainly could not handle. I sincerely thank them for this dedication and their commitment to our community.

Queensland Rail Ms SIMPSON (Maroochydore—LNP) (11.40 am): On Friday, 30 per cent of Citytrain services failed to run on time and on Monday, 20 per cent of services failed to run on time in peak periods due to point and signal failures. On the weekend, services on the Cleveland, Ipswich and Gold Coast lines were reported as disrupted due to signal and track faults. Last month a slow-travelling train fell off the tracks here in Brisbane. Is this decaying rail service, with its appalling on-time performance and poor maintenance, how the Minister for Transport defines world-class performance? What we are seeing with this system as it continues to fail is an impact upon passengers and upon freight. Yes, there were storms on Tuesday later in the day which were to blame for some of the disruption but not the earlier incidents I mentioned. What we are seeing is an increasing rate of failure of the key services of Queensland. It is incredible to think that the transport minister is proposing huge hikes in fares when the current system that public transport users want to use is not meeting their needs. People are furious to think they are being forced to use overcrowded trains when frequently services fail to arrive, yet this government is proposing a new system of significant fare increases without addressing the failure in the maintenance and performance of this system. Where has been the explanation from the transport minister with regard to the derailment? Where has been the explanation as to the failures in the maintenance of a system which people rely on? These are the basic services which government should oversee and ensure are properly upheld. Yet all we see from this government is a push to take more money off people for a service which clearly is not working and needs their attention. (Time expired)

Cairns, Public Transport Mr WETTENHALL (Barron River—ALP) (11.42 am): The Bligh government is committed to building a modern, efficient, accessible, comfortable and affordable public transport system in Cairns. This year local bus operator Sunbus has taken delivery of 24 new buses thanks to a $5 million contribution from the Bligh government. The new buses are bigger, faster, quieter, more fuel efficient and easier to drive than the older units they have replaced. These new low-floor buses offer much improved accessibility for frail, aged and wheelchair passengers. Bus patronage has grown in the Cairns region by 9.2 per cent in the year to July, with three million journeys undertaken sparked by the popularity of the new qconnect services. Work in the region is also continuing on developing the Cairns transit network, which will connect major activity services with rapid and reliable bus services as a key part of the Far North Queensland 2031 regional plan. The expansion of the fleet will enable improved scheduling and the bus operator to consider further expansion of the route network into rapidly growing areas of the community not currently serviced. One such area is the Freshwater Valley in Redlynch in my electorate. Between 2003 and 2008 the population of that area increased by 12 per cent, from 1,430 people to 2,520 people. Today I will be lodging with the Clerk a petition containing the signatures of 826 residents who support the extension of bus services into the Freshwater Valley. The petition is a strong indication of the support for a new route to service this rapidly growing suburb in Cairns. 28 Oct 2009 Private Members’ Statements 2919

Sunshine Coast-Wide Bay, Health Services Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—LNP) (11.44 am): Earlier this year Queensland Health published a document on its website titled Sunshine Coast-Wide Bay southern cluster: projected inpatient bed requirements. At 2.4 it says— There is significant flow of Southern Cluster ... residents to Brisbane hospitals for care. Residents of the Southern Cluster also access fewer health services (in any location) than is expected compared to the rest of Queensland ... These factors highlight the need for an adequate and appropriate mix of clinical services and more effective arrangements for delivering services locally. Service areas where analysis indicates that Sunshine Coast residents have lower access, than the state average, include dermatology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, rehabilitation, palliative care and geriatric management. By 2016 it is expected that there will be 306 overnight beds utilised elsewhere than on the Sunshine Coast by Sunshine Coast residents. That is 306 beds per night used outside of the Sunshine Coast area by patients who live on the Sunshine Coast. By 2021 that figure will grow to 370 overnight beds used by Sunshine Coast residents outside of the Sunshine Coast. That means that the claims by the health minister—that he is projecting an increase in bed numbers to cater for the growth of the Sunshine Coast and to alleviate the concerns for the hospitals—are absolute rubbish. We were promised—and we were committed to—by this government a $1.5 billion hospital by 2013-14. We now find that the government’s own figures clearly indicate that by 2016 there will still be 306 overnight beds used by Sunshine Coast residents outside the region. The government has continued to fabricate— (Time expired) Redcliffe, Multiculturalism Ms van LITSENBURG (Redcliffe—ALP) (11.46 am): Last Saturday was United Nations Day, and Redcliffe celebrated it with a multicultural dinner and concert hosted by the Redcliffe Multicultural Association. There was an atmosphere of camaraderie as over 60 people from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds rocked to a variety of bands and a group of rousing Russian folk musicians and singers. Dinner was a feast of multicultural dishes prepared by members from the Redcliffe Multicultural Association. The Redcliffe Multicultural Association also hosts an annual interfaith service and breakfast at which people from a variety of faiths including Christian, Hindu, Islam and Judaism share in each other’s faith. The Bligh government’s strong leadership and multicultural policies have enabled new Queenslanders to integrate more readily into Queensland society without losing touch with their roots to create strong communities in which all people are supported right across the state. We are partnering with the Rudd government to work towards the same goal Australia-wide. We are proud that the Rudd government is using a more compassionate hand with immigrants and asylum seekers eclipsing the draconian and heartless Howard Liberal government’s policies. Australians and Queenslanders with multicultural backgrounds have found that the more compassionate and equitable policies under the Queensland and Australian Labor governments have resulted in more accepting and harmonious communities. This deepening of understanding between the different cultures that make up Queensland and Australian society is strengthening our multicultural outlook and is working to achieve the United Nations goal of international peace. Queensland Rail, Fires Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—LNP) (11.48 am): Landowners in the Collinsville region adjacent to the rail line from Newlands are sick of fighting fires that have been set alight by QR trains. Whether fires are caused by faulty arresters in the exhausts of the engines sparking high fuel loads of grass in the rail corridors, by a lack of maintenance on arresters or by an increased build-up of fuel load is a matter of conjecture. There has been buck-passing from one QR department to another. They have ignored calls from landholders and now only just starting to listen to their concerns. Well over 30 fires have been started in the Bowen River and Briaba areas since July this year. Two houses in Collinsville very nearly burnt down, and these people are battling the blaze full-time. The railway line has been there for years. I am told that the fuel load in the rail tracks is similar to other years. So why are these fires starting? It smacks of poor maintenance by QR and reflects the ‘don’t care’ attitude of this government to North Queensland pastoralists in general. What other rail corridors is this happening along? If an individual lit that number of fires, surely he or she would be in jail by now. What does that say about Queensland Rail? I call on QR’s engine rolling stock and track maintenance arms to get their acts together, stop blaming each other and fix the problem. In addition, the 40-member Bowen River volunteer rural fire brigade is without sufficient personal protective equipment. Why? Because there is no more available in Queensland. How dangerous is that? I have written to and emailed Minister Roberts, but have yet to receive a reply. What those landholders are putting up with from both departments is quite deplorable. It is a hugely dangerous situation. Landholders are exhausted from continually battling fires at all hours of the night and are living 2920 Private Members’ Statements 28 Oct 2009 in very real fear of being totally burnt out. Lives could be in very real danger if this situation continues. I am told QR will put a plan in place for next year, but that is a bit late as by then all the landholders will be totally burnt out. This is a disgraceful situation and Minister Nolan must take responsibility for the danger Queensland Rail is putting these landowners in. (Time expired) Townsville: Queensland Solar City Project; Illidge, Miss O Ms JOHNSTONE (Townsville—ALP) (11.50 am): The Townsville: Queensland Solar City project is a partnership between all three levels of government and an Ergon Energy led consortium that aims to identify potential opportunities from the use of solar photovoltaics and solar thermal energy, smart meters, energy efficiency, demand reduction and management, and peak management. Mrs Sullivan: It’s a great project. Ms JOHNSTONE: It is a fantastic project. Visitors to Townsville should go and have a look at it. Townsville is Queensland’s solar city and the suburb of Magnetic Island is the solar suburb, which allows residents, businesses and visitors to the island the opportunity to participate in this research trial. The local island community has embraced solar city and all that it involves, and is already exceeding all expectations. One of the aims of the project is to reduce local demand by 25 per cent. Already, exceptional outcomes are being seen with a nine per cent differential in household consumption between participating and regular households. One resort participating in the project has already had an immediate decrease in power bills by some $700 per month. The 2008-09 year has also seen 621 household and businesses receive energy assessments, and the installation of 1,319 smart meters. For the benefit of the House, I table the first edition of the Solar Suburb Buzz which contains full details of the achievements to date. Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Magnetic Island Solar Suburb’ [1166]. By incorporating solar PV technology with inverters, smart meters and battery storage units, this project is giving huge insight into renewable energy solutions that can be duplicated around the state and across Australia. One local Magnetic Island resident, Miss Olivia Illidge, is also doing her bit to make ‘Maggie’ greener and cleaner. A primary school student, Olivia has been inspired by the recent death of Whitey the crocodile, who passed away after ingesting plastic bags. Olivia and other students from Magnetic Island State School have embarked on a campaign to make Magnetic Island bag free. I am sure that they will have success. Mrs Keech: Her grandmother is very proud. Ms JOHNSTONE: I know her grandmother is proud. The students have received significant support. Living in a World Heritage listed area brings responsibility for protecting the local environment. Congratulations, Olivia, for showing leadership and initiative at such a young age and for taking on personal responsibility for protecting your beautiful patch of North Queensland. (Time expired) Breast Cancer Mr DICKSON (Buderim—LNP) (11.52 am): As this week is Breast Cancer Awareness Week, it seems appropriate to share with the House an issue affecting many women on the Sunshine Coast. I know many of us have been touched personally by cancer and know the battles faced by men and women dealing with the disease. Those battles are often even harder for people living outside the Brisbane metropolitan area as they have to travel to Brisbane for treatment. For many public patients on the Sunshine Coast, this includes radiation therapy. My colleagues and I are fighting hard for a new hospital on the Sunshine Coast so that cancer patients do not have to travel three hours a day to access vital treatment. Reconstructive surgery is vital for many women suffering from breast cancer. If you are fortunate enough to have private health cover and are able to afford it, reconstructive surgery can often be performed at the same time as cancer surgery. Obviously, that is a huge benefit as it means one operation instead of two. The women are almost certainly going to be better prepared physically, to say nothing of the emotional and psychological benefits. However, if you are reliant on the public health service on the Sunshine Coast, reconstructive surgery is not available to you if you have had a mastectomy. Not only do women have to undergo a separate operation but also they cannot have that surgery on the Sunshine Coast as a public patient. Sunshine Coast patients—who have probably undergone not only surgery but also chemotherapy and radiation therapy—have to again travel to Brisbane in order to have reconstructive surgery. To make matters worse, I am advised that the Brisbane hospitals give preference to Brisbane patients who do not have to travel a long distance. 28 Oct 2009 Private Members’ Statements 2921

This means a wait of two years or more for reconstructive surgery. I would like to ask members opposite if it was them or somebody close to them, such as a wife or mother, would they find that wait acceptable? I know I do not. I call on this government to do better for women with breast cancer, not just on the Sunshine Coast but across Queensland. There are lots of private organisations that help, and I call on the government to help these women. (Time expired)

Affordable Housing Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (11.54 am): Recently I have spoken in this House about the need for more affordable housing options to assist families on the Gold Coast who are struggling with increasing rental costs. Last week it was a pleasure to have the Premier visit the electorate of Broadwater to officially open a new 35-unit affordable housing complex in Labrador. The Premier’s visit generated great excitement. For the tenants of the lovely new stylish units, the day also signified the end of the financial and emotional stress of finding safe and affordable accommodation. The Bligh government partnered with Churches of Christ, one of the largest social housing providers in Queensland, to fund this $10 million important infrastructure project. I would like to thank Churches of Christ Acting Executive Director, Peter Cranna, for his dedication and leadership in driving this project and for considering Labrador as the location, as it is a sought-after area. Everyone deserves to live close to schools, transport and medical facilities, and Labrador is a great location. The apartment complex will be managed by Churches of Christ Care. It was indeed heartwarming to meet some of the tenants who have already moved in, some of whom I have met in my office when they discussed with me their need for housing. Every tenant has a story to tell of their struggle to find suitable accommodation and every tenant beamed with great pride that they had now been offered a safe and secure place to live. I would like to thank Steve, the property manager of the units, for organising the morning tea and the opening, and the many tenants who generously opened their doors to allow invited guests, the media, the Premier and I to tour their abodes. The Queensland government is tackling housing affordability with the biggest expansion of social housing in Queensland’s history. We know that to have a secure affordable home is important to Queenslanders. Affordable housing projects like this one also create jobs, keep apprentices employed and keep the building industry stimulated. Unlike the member for Fadden, Stuart Robert, who recently ran a campaign against affordable housing provision by the state and federal governments, I will continue to support and assist vulnerable and disadvantaged members of our society to obtain a suitable place to call home.

Sunshine Coast, Health Services Mr BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (11.56 am): This government has given up on the provision of health services to the residents of the Sunshine Coast. Health was a major election issue in March, but just three months later the government has turned around and delayed the Sunshine Coast University Hospital. That decision has not only jeopardised the health of all Sunshine Coast residents but also has put a tremendous strain on the services and staff we have at present. Simply put, we need hospital beds and we need them now. The Sunshine Coast will not go without a fight. I am pleased to announce that— Mr Lucas interjected. Mr McArdle interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! Deputy Premier and member for Caloundra! Pause the clock. Would the member for Caloundra and the Deputy Premier please cease their argument across the chamber. The member for Kawana has the floor. Thank you. Mr BLEIJIE: I am pleased to announce to the House that on 8 November the Sunshine Coast will march as one and protest against this government’s terrible decision. We already have over 17,000 signatures on a petition. The message is getting out there that this government and this minister are arrogant and will not listen. The people of the Sunshine Coast are fed up with that attitude and they will join the rally that I have organised for 8 November at 9.30 am at Kawana Way. I encourage all Sunshine Coast residents to participate. This morning during question time it was a disgrace to hear the minister talk amidst the rabble. Labor Party members from the other side thought they had found some road to Damascus. They thought they had uncovered a great secret, but the minutes of the community group are on the website. There is no secrecy. I put it to the House that the community group that the minister says is not independent was set up when Chris Cummins was the Labor Party member for Kawana. That community group was set up under his reign. 2922 Integrated Planning Amendment Bill 28 Oct 2009

It beggars belief that the minister would go on about this when we have letters such as this, which states— Dear Comrades, Over the last few weeks we have scored some good direct hits on the Health Minister ... Please keep them coming. ...

Please search through your representations to the minister to find letters—preferably on behalf of sad, needy constituents ... Please also keep those victims coming. Remember, a victim a day keeps Horan at bay. This is about the kids. Kids will be at the march because the kids of the Sunshine Coast are desperate for health services. (Time expired) Safe Work Australia Week Ms O’NEILL (Kallangur—ALP) (11.59 am): This week is Safe Work Australia Week and, as Workplace Health and Safety Queensland says, ‘Healthier and safer workplaces equal healthier and safer workers.’ Mr Lucas: You’ve got a lot to learn, mate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! Deputy Premier, would you please desist, thank you. Mr Bleijie: Come to the march. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Kawana. The member for Kallangur has the call. Please continue. Ms O’NEILL: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Some risks in workplaces are obvious and receive appropriate attention. However, some are not as obvious and are secondary to other risks such as fatigue. Surveys show that working people are working longer hours to get their jobs done and work has intensified. The impact of both these factors means that we also need to focus on avoiding fatigue and the resultant societal and health effects. If all other risks at work are taken care of but working people are working long hours, covering gaps in shift rosters, not taking lunch or other breaks, those risk management strategies can be undermined significantly by those workers being fatigued. High levels of fatigue cause reduced performance and productivity and increase the risk of accidents and injuries. Fatigue affects the ability to think clearly, which leads to poor judgement, poor performance on skilled tasks and slower reaction times. As a result, people who are fatigued are unable to gauge their own level of impairment and are unaware that they are not functioning as well or as safely as they would if they were not fatigued. Not only do these effects decrease performance and productivity within the workplace, but they simultaneously increase the potential for incidents and injuries to occur. People working in a fatigued state may place themselves and others at risk. Research shows that fatigue can effect people in the same way as alcohol. Long-term effects of fatigue on health may include heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and depression. Long hours and work intensification not only affects us at work but has an impact on our family, social life and community life. We have less time with our family, less time time to take part in volunteer roles, changes to mood and demeanour, poor health and, in the worst cases, injuries and recovery time from accidents whether at work or not from being constantly tired and unable to concentrate. In our aim to be healthier and more productive, appropriate rest and recreation are critical.

INTEGRATED PLANNING AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (12.01 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Integrated Planning Act 1997 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: Integrated Planning Amendment Bill [1167]. Tabled paper: Integrated Planning Amendment Bill, explanatory notes [1168]. 28 Oct 2009 Private Members’ Statements 2923

Second Reading Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (12.01 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. End-of-life care is everyone’s business and I submit a bill to provide the opportunity for people to die in their own community in a community hospice guesthouse. The state Integrated Planning Act needs to be amended so that local governments can approve community hospice guesthouses in rural or rural residential zoning areas. This option is not viable at present in Queensland due to the planning regulations of the state and local governments. The state Integrated Planning Act and local government planning schemes do not recognise a community based end-of-life care service as distinguished from a medical facility. It is proposed that these community hospice guesthouses will be located in rural or rural residential areas providing short- term accommodation and hospice care for no more than three terminally ill people by no more than three permanent staff. This bill matches moves from around the world, with the full understanding that the current acute healthcare system in Queensland is under significant pressure to meet the needs of the dying. Palliative Care Queensland and Palliative Care Australia believe that people facing death need to be cared for in an environment of their choice. It is generally appreciated within the hospice and palliative care profession that people want to have as much choice as possible about the place where they wish to die and consider that four options should be available to choose from. These are: their own home, a home-like hospice facility located within a community, a hospital including palliative care beds or a palliative care unit, and a residential aged-care facility. On the Sunshine Coast, as in other parts of Queensland, there is a gap in the end-of-life care services available to people. We do have excellent hospice and palliative care services which partly meet the needs of the Sunshine Coast population. However, we do not have the option of choice for a place to die in a home-like hospice facility. I seek leave to have the remainder of my speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Palliative Care Australia states that “most people with a terminal illness will be cared for by their practitioner and community nurses…(and) that most people with a terminal condition prefer to receive care at home, but this will depend on many factors”. In other words people often need professional care, but there is difficulty in receiving this in a non-institutionalised atmosphere. This need for a softer but professional approach is a common and growing phenomenon in developed countries. This Bill draws upon the English model of community hospice care facilities which work with other services. Facilities similar to hospice guest houses (often referred to as cottages) were evident in the United Kingdom in the 1980s. The idea is a simple one, obtain a house in a rural or rural residential precinct, equip and adapt it for caring for a maximum of three terminally ill people and draw upon the local community nursing services and doctors to provide the clinical care. This Bill is about building community capacity. It is not about replicating the excellent community and primary care services already providing end of life care. The Sunshine Coast Community Hospice, of which I am a patron, has adopted this United Kingdom model and has experienced significant difficulties in obtaining approval for the service to operate because the present legislation doesn’t recognise a Community Hospice Guest House as an entity. The Community Hospice Guest House is proposed to be a home to die in when you cannot stay in your own home and alleviating physical symptoms is only a part of what hospice care is about. It is not a medical facility. The state Integrated Planning Act needs to be amended so that Local Governments can approve these much needed community hospice guest houses in Rural or Rural Residential zoning areas. This morning I tabled petitions from almost 2000 people supporting this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. (Time expired) Debate, on motion of Mr Hinchliffe, adjourned.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Old Windmill Restoration Ms GRACE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (12.03 pm): The Old Windmill on Wickham Terrace is one of Queensland’s oldest remaining convict buildings and is the oldest windmill tower in Australia. It is therefore a building of national significance as well as an important tourist attraction on Brisbane’s heritage trail. The state government was pleased to partner with the Brisbane City Council on restoration works as part of a larger $2 million joint project, Connecting Brisbane, celebrating Brisbane and Queensland’s 150th birthday. The state government funding was provided through the Q150 Legacy Infrastructure Program, a $100 million capital works program to create legacies for Queensland’s 150th birthday. Thanks to this program and to the wonderful restoration work which has been carried out, the Old Windmill will continue to be a well-loved heritage site for the City of Brisbane for many more generations to come. 2924 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 28 Oct 2009

The opening on Tuesday of last week saw this beautiful old building now restored to its former glory and standing as a beacon connecting us to our convict past. It is one of the great legacies of Queensland’s 150th birthday, and I believe it will make a fantastic addition to the tourist trail in Brisbane. This well-known city landmark played many roles in its history—from the late 1820s when grains were ground to feed the people of Brisbane to the 1860s when it became an important signal station and a means of communication. It was fantastic to finally be able to enter the building, climb to the top and take in the magnificent views of Brisbane from the platform. I am looking forward to working with the Brisbane City Council to work out some system where tourists who visit this historic site may be able to enter the building and climb the stairs. The difficulty is that the platform was obviously not made for a large number of tourists. We have to find a way for this to be done. I pay particular homage to all those who worked on this great building. It is a fantastic site. I urge everyone to visit. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The time for private members’ statements has expired.

HEALTH AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

HEALTH PRACTITIONER REGULATION NATIONAL LAW BILL

Second Reading (Cognate Debate)

Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill Health and Other Legislation Amendment Bill resumed from 23 April (see p. 187) and Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Bill resumed from 6 October (see p. 2514), on motion of Mr Lucas— That the bills be now read a second time. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—LNP) (12.06 pm): I will speak firstly to the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. The bill before the House amends some 21 acts, the majority dealing with the extension of provisional registration from six months to 12 months and the cancellation of general registration on the grounds that information or a document was false or misleading, which resulted in registration occurring. It must also be noted that criminal sanctions flow as a consequence of providing misleading or false information or documentation. Perhaps the balance of the bill could be covered under eight key objectives. They are: amending the Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999; amending the Medical Practitioners Registration Act 2001 to introduce mandatory reporting of professional misconduct by doctors; amending the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 to allow nurse practitioners to issue workers compensation certificates for minor injuries; amending the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act to ban smoking in cars with children under the age of 16 and by all persons in a motor vehicle where that vehicle is used for a business purpose; amending the Health Quality and Complaints Commission Act 2006 to require the Health Quality and Complaints Commission to undertake an impact assessment prior to making or amending a standard; amending the Health Services Act 1991 to enable the release of confidential information for the protection or wellbeing of a child; amending the Public Health Act 2005 to allow the release of information of a notifiable condition on the verbal consent of a patient to enable effective treatment and to also allow the disclosure of information for the purposes of research; and, finally, amending the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Act 1998 to restrict the use of smoking related products for tobacco advertising and allow local governments to regulate smoking at public transport waiting points and pedestrian malls. Before turning to the bill in detail, I note that clause 2 in subclause (1) provides a retrospective commencement date of 16 January 2006 in regard to sections 163 and 165(2). These sections deal with the research provisions of the Public Health Act 2005. I would request the minister in his reply to outline the circumstances that require a retrospective commencement date, particularising the issues that exist now as a consequence of the uncertainty of the drafting of the initial provisions. Turning to the specifics contained in the bill, and given that it does not deal with one topic but could be said to be an omnibus bill, there are a number of matters that need clarification. The amendments to the Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act allow the delegation of certain powers of the board and allow the minister to make what are termed temporary arrangements where it is needed to urgently appoint an individual as a member of a professional panel or assessors for various reasons. More importantly, clause 31 amends section 35 to allow notification of a decision to reject a complaint to be given as soon as practicable after making the decision, as opposed to the existing 14 days. 28 Oct 2009 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 2925

My question to the minister here relates to the fact that the phrase ‘as soon as practicable after’ is open ended and it may well go on for some considerable period of time. Can the minister explain the circumstances that warrant the 14 days being amended? What are the specific instances that require the 14 days being pushed out to a date that cannot be specified by reference to a calendar? Importantly, clause 38 allows cost orders to be enforced through the District Court, while clause 39 states that, if the board intends to enter into an undertaking, that undertaking takes effect only from the day it is approved by the board. Clause 42 allows information to be disclosed to the Queensland Nursing Council or the Nursing Tribunal where the disclosure is required to allow those bodies to perform their function under the Nursing Act. Perhaps one of the most interesting provisions in the bill deals with the amendment to the Health Quality and Complaints Commission Act 2006, the genesis of which lies in the Review of the Health Quality and Complaints Commission and the Health Quality and Complaints Commission Act 2006, which was delivered by the committee in November 2007. The review document lists some 37 recommendations, of which No. 36 is dealt with specifically in this bill, and I will come back to that shortly. However, I believe that the document at recommendation 35 provides an important potential further amendment. That recommendation reads— That the Minister for Health considers amendments to the Health Quality and Complaints Commission Act 2006 of similar intent as the amendments provided for under the Health Legislation Amendment (Unregistered Health Practitioners) Bill 2006 in New South Wales. I would like to make short comments in relation to recommendation 35. I note on pages 90 and 91 of the review there is a discussion under the heading ‘Power to regulate and make orders against unregistered providers’ which states— The select committee notes that health services provided by unregistered providers are within the commission’s jurisdiction. However, there is no mechanism within the legislation or elsewhere to take action or make orders against unregistered providers in the circumstance where disciplinary action or an order of some kind would be appropriate. It then goes on to state— ... there is no ability for the commission or any other body to take disciplinary action or make any prohibition orders against, for example, an unregistered counsellor, or deregistered psychologist who has set up business as a counsellor, in circumstances that would attract disciplinary action against a registered provider. On page 91 at paragraph 454, the committee comments— That these circumstances are not covered by the HQCC’s enabling legislation appears to be a serious flaw. The select committee is of the view that the Minister for Health should consider amending the Health Quality and Complaints Commission Act 2006 in a similar manner as recently undertaken in NSW. These amendments could allow the HQCC to make prohibition orders against unregistered health practitioners who pose a substantial risk to the health of the community. As far as I can tell, the bill before the House fails to do that, in contradiction of the recommendations made by the select committee. As such, the bill fails to go far enough in protecting the health of Queenslanders. I note in particular that the New South Wales bill gives their equivalent to our commission the right to issue public warnings about unsafe treatments and practitioners—a serious flaw in Queensland’s legislation that is yet to be addressed by this government. Recommendation 36 reads— That the Minister for Health considers an amendment to section 22 of the Health Quality and Complaints Commission Act 2006 to include the requirement for the commission to undertake an impact assessment prior to the development of any future standards. I note in particular that Queensland Health’s submission, which is referred to on page 91 of the document, reads— The Review Committee might consider whether, in addition to the requirement under section 22(5) of the Act for the Commission to consult on draft standards, the Act should expressly provide for matters which the Commission must take into account in developing standards. For example, the cost and timing of implementation and the relative impact on large, medium and small providers. The report goes on to state that the Acting Director-General of Queensland Health at the Brisbane hearing noted— We believe that a more formal consideration of the impact of the standards is part of what that process needs to go through. It is a general requirement with legislation and regulation to do regulatory impact assessments, which I am sure you are very familiar with. We believe that same process should be implemented in relation to any standards that are set underneath that, such as what are the resource implications of going down this route. Probably what will come out of that is not that you do not do them but that you actually have a process for implementation which reflects the fact that there would potentially be some substantive resource implications for doing that and that needs to be balanced against the day-to-day needs within the health system. There is in fact comment on page 92, paragraph 458, of the review from the Private Hospitals Association of Queensland which reads— The vast majority of doctors in the private sector are visiting medical officers (VMOs), and as such are independent contractors each managing their own business, and not salaried employees. This makes it far more difficult to impose specific clinical practice requirements on individuals who are not salaried employees of a hospital and requires a comprehensive communication process to ensure that each VMO is aware of their specific legal responsibilities. 2926 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 28 Oct 2009

I would ask the minister to outline in his reply in relation to the implementation of recommendation 36 the communication process that has been put in place to explain to VMOs their legal obligations under new standards or amended standards. At the conclusion of the deliberation concerning the point, the committee states at paragraph 460— The impact assessment would look at matters to which the commission must have regard in developing a standard such as the cost of implementation, timing for implementation, resourcing issues, and the impact of the standard on different provider groups, including large, medium and small (individual) providers and public versus private providers. The bill before the House goes some way to dealing with these matters, but there is absolutely no requirement, as I read the bill, for public consultation until it is published on the commission’s website seeking input. In fact, the bill is silent as to who would form the relevant group to determine what standards or what amendments would be made. Certainly, there is no indication that it would involve input from outside practitioners, as could be implied from comments made in the report of the select committee, for example, by VMOs. In addition, one does have to consider the words as to how an impact assessment would take place—and more particularly the matters that would be looked at as identified in the report by the select committee—and how they compare to the terms of the bill. In fact, the recommendation by the select committee compared to the provisions of clause 46 of the bill are severely watered down. In essence, it leaves the determination to the commission itself, with such language as to enable it to adopt a path to its own ends, but there is a further sting in the tail of clause 46 at proposed new section 22A(8), which states— Failure to comply with this section does not affect the validity of the standard or amendment. We will discuss that further when we reach the clauses portion of the debate. The next provision is part 7 of the bill, which deals with amendments to the Health Services Act. This is significant and it relies upon the recommendation of the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian that part 7 of the act be reviewed to enable disclosure of information for the protection, safety or wellbeing of a child in a broad range of circumstances. I note that the explanatory notes in relation to this matter on page 2 state— In addition, Coronial reports have been critical of health professionals who have not provided information in cases that have resulted in the death of a child. The commission’s report, entitled Children of parents with mental health issues, was ‘a review into government service provision preceding the alleged murder of a 10-year-old child by her father; where the father had received involuntary treatment for mental health issues shortly prior to the child’s death’. The report was issued in April 2008. Under part 1 of the report, commencing at page 13, there is a discussion of the current cross-agency responsibilities and it details the provisions of the Public Health Act 2005 and the Mental Health Act 2000. On page 14, under the heading ‘Policies, Procedures and Guidelines’, it states— QH’s ‘Integrated Resource Manual 3.19: Child Safety—Health Professionals Capability Requirements and Reporting Responsibilities’, August 2005, explicitly outlines the mandatory obligations of all QH staff to report any ‘reasonable suspicion that a child has been, or is being or is likely to be harmed’, both as a QH policy obligation and, for health professionals, in accordance with the PH Act. This policy also refers to the ‘Report of a Reasonable Suspicion of Child Abuse and Neglect’ form, which QH staff must complete when making a mandatory notification to DChS. In addition, in referring to the management of abused and neglected children and young people, the document states at page 14— QH Child Safety Unit’s ‘Protecting Queensland Children: Policy Statement and Guidelines on the management of abuse and neglect of children and young people (0-18 years)’, September 2005, recognises parental mental health disorder as a risk factor for all types of child abuse and neglect. ...

It goes on to state: ‘If a parent has a mental health problem…their ability to care for, nurture and protect their children may be limited. The children may also have to fend more for themselves than other children of the same age. They may be taking responsibility for household management. Without an adult carer’s guidance, children may find themselves in high risk situations.’ Yet incredibly the report at page 14 goes on to state— However, at the time of the father’s admission to RBWH, there were no specific policies, procedures or guidelines for QH staff to assess, act upon or report foreseeable risk of harm to children of parents with mental health issues. It is unbelievable that almost four years after a policy document was issued by Queensland Health we are now seeing before this parliament what could be called basic and, in my opinion, essential legislation. In 2003 the Queensland Ombudsman released a report entitled An investigation into the adequacy of the actions of certain government agencies in relation to the safety, well being and care of the late baby Kate, who died aged 10 weeks. On page xiv under the heading of ‘Systemic issues relating to Department of Families’, these comments appear— No protocol existed between QH and DOF to ensure that, immediately baby Kate was born, DOF would be notified so that an assessment of risk of harm to baby Kate could be conducted. 28 Oct 2009 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 2927

The second comment on the same page is this— The decision to allow Lisa and John to remove baby Kate from the hospital was based on an inadequate assessment of the risk of harm to the child. The case highlights problems in communication between DOF officers and QH officers in respect of information relevant to the assessment of risk. In May 2002 the Ombudsman released a report entitled An investigation into the adequacy of the actions of certain government agencies in relation to the safety of the late Brooke Brennan, aged three. At page xiii under the heading ‘Particulars of Maladministration’ and subheading ‘Queensland Health’, the report made a number of comments. The first one was 1.1, which states— There are no written policies or procedures to address when, and in what circumstances, prescribed medical officers of QH should make a 96-hour order in relation to a child, which resulted in inconsistent application of section 76L of the Health Act by QH officers. The report then states on the same page— There are no written policies or procedures requiring the documenting of verbal child protection referrals/requests made by QH officers to other agencies that have a concurrent child protection role. This encourages the making of verbal referrals or requests that: • lead to uncertainty as to the nature and priority of the referrals/requests; and • cannot be effectively audited. The present case highlights these problems. I hope that we have seen the last of the need for such reports as in 2002 and 2003 as a consequence of the tragic death of a child not more than 18 to 20-odd months ago. At the end of the day, everybody in this House, and indeed the government, has an obligation to ensure that those children who are the most vulnerable are offered the best protection they possibly can. On page 5 of the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian’s report there are a series of recommendations. Recommendation 2 recommends a review of the Health Services Act leading to the provision contained within the bill. The recommendation states that the review should be informed by this report as well as any recent child deaths known to Queensland Health including coronial inquiries where issues were identified concerning disclosure of confidential information. The question I pose to the health minister is: will the minister outline to the House how many coronial inquiries have shown or highlighted this concern? I also note that footnote 57 of the report refers to recent coronial findings about child deaths which identified instances where the disclosure of the information to family members, carers or other relevant persons may be required for the care and protection of a child. Can the minister advise on how many occasions the health department has been notified of such concern? Part 7 of the bill encompasses clauses 47 to 50 relating to the disclosure and states that information can be disclosed by a designated person if it is to a person for the protection, safety or wellbeing of a child and relates to someone other than the child mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The explanatory notes envisage a situation where a parent had been injured and what would be the appropriate arrangements to be made for a child to be collected from school. The second scenario would involve grandparents and the mental illness of a parent to ensure a grandchild or grandchildren were in fact protected and safe. The commission’s report states at page 34 that amendment of the act should occur ‘so as to allow for the provision of confidential information to a person’s children, other family members, support network and other relevant persons’. The wording of the bill appears to cover individuals being given information, whereas the commission refers to a support network such as a rehabilitation facility being given information to provide for the protection, safety or wellbeing of a child in the care of a mentally ill person. Again, we will come back to that issue when we discuss the clauses. One of the most important provisions contained in the bill commences with clause 61 and deals with the fact that a notice is required to be given by what is termed the first registrant if he or she becomes aware or reasonably suspects that another registrant, termed the second registrant, has engaged in reportable misconduct. The clause defines ‘reportable misconduct to mean conduct that would reasonably be considered to be sexual misconduct, the practice of a profession while intoxicated by a drug or alcohol, or the practice of a profession while affected by a physical or mental impairment or other health condition, or acting in a manner that departs from the accepted standards of the profession that causes or is likely to cause harm. It then defines the word ‘harm’ to mean ‘any detrimental effect of a significant nature on the person’s physical or psychological wellbeing’. It is important to consider when looking at the reporting provisions contained here—and, indeed, in the other bill in this cognate debate—to look at other jurisdictions that have adopted a similar attitude. There are seven jurisdictions in the United States that have enacted legislation requiring mandatory reporting in the area of professional standards but only one in Australia—New South Wales. The Medical Practice Amendment Act 2008 introduced in New South Wales the compulsory reporting of doctors for sexual misconduct, substance abuse and incompetent clinical practice. That act introduced strict reporting requirements for doctors who have reason to believe that one of their colleagues is practising medicine unsafely. Under that act, the types of professional misconduct that are reportable are the practice of medicine whilst under the influence of alcohol or drugs, the practice of medicine in a manner that risks harm to some other person and departs from the accepted standards of professional practice or competence, or sexual misconduct in connection with the practice of medicine. 2928 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 28 Oct 2009

I note that Ebsworth Lawyers’s Health Law Bulletin, referring to the New South Wales amendments, raised a note of caution. It states— While it is clearly desirable to encourage doctors to come forward if they believe one of their colleagues is not practising medicine safely or appropriately, the new reporting requirements are extremely onerous and may be uncertain in their application. It is not clear, for example, what level of suspicion or evidence is required before a doctor should ‘reasonably believe’ that a colleague is committing reportable misconduct. The publication then went on to state— ... there was clearly a political imperative to introduce tighter regulatory procedures for identifying and disciplining doctors who do not adhere to appropriate professional standards. Although the New South Wales provisions are different from the Queensland provisions, there are similarities and similar concerns. Clearly, the level of suspicion or evidence that constitutes reportable misconduct is difficult to define and one can certainly see an avenue for debate. This may well lead to a culture of individual blame in the health system at a time that advocates of better quality and safety measures are trying to focus on systems of improvement rather than individual performance. Mr Lucas: What a load of rot. This is about getting stuck into the Patels of the world when they should be reported and reported vigorously. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! Minister, you will have your turn. Mr McARDLE: If the minister wants to get this debate into the gutter, where he seems to want to have it, I will do so. But I believe that the important aspect is to debate the clauses of the bill in a rational manner and, given that it is very important, the clauses that we are considering in this bill and in the bill that was introduced at a later time. If the minister wants to— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Caloundra, you have the call. Mr MESSENGER: I rise to a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, I remind the health minister that there is a legal case before the courts at the moment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Burnett, there is no point of order. I would ask you to take your seat, thank you very much. Mr McARDLE: The bill is specifically linked to a communique of the Australian Health Ministers Conference dated 5 March 2009. The communique referred to safety measures delivering important protections to patients, specifically the mandatory reporting of professionals who are placing the public at risk of harm. AMA Queensland has stated that the bill is an improvement on the document that was introduced in 2008, yet it has raised concerns about a number of issues. Principally, the AMAQ is seeking that the definition of ‘reportable misconduct’ should be stated to cover events that display a significant departure from accepted standards of the profession. The Medical Indemnity Industry Association of Australia has contacted each member of the House, raising concerns about mandatory reporting and suggesting that it not include issues related to clinical care but, rather, limit the obligation to conduct such as practising whilst intoxicated by drugs or alcohol, or sexual misconduct. As members would be aware, the association’s correspondence provided its definition of what should be reportable misconduct and exemptions, including whether a practitioner is a spouse or other registered practitioner, or the practitioner derived the knowledge or belief as a result of a protected confidence. It is interesting to note that the association proposes the exemption applying to a spouse. Of course, this proposal raises the particular question of the importance of protecting a spousal relationship as that term is defined within the provision proposed by the association and, indeed, the legislation. In Queensland, under the Criminal Code it was not all that long ago that a husband or wife could not be compelled to provide evidence against the other. But the question is whether, in these circumstances, a spouse should be required to provide a report to the board on their spouse for reportable misconduct as defined under the terms of the legislation. Indeed, it is one step prior to any proceedings or hearing being undertaken. Therein lies the distinction. In my opinion, the question is easy to determine in relation to sexual misconduct in that I do not believe that an exemption should apply as I am certain no relationship would survive that form of conduct. However, the question is more difficult in relation to the other reportable misconduct provisions. We know that there is an ethical obligation on all doctors to provide the best medical care that they can, which clearly means not harming a patient. In my belief, that obligation also carries an implied obligation on a doctor to protect patients from doctors who pose a risk. The other important question is the obligation on society to protect the family unit. Thus the question—and indeed it is a difficult question—is: are we, by imposing an obligation on a spouse as proposed herein, running contrary to the importance of the family unit? I believe the exemption should apply, as I said, with the exception of sexual misconduct. We will debate that issue when we debate the clauses later, which I suspect will be tomorrow. 28 Oct 2009 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 2929

The bill goes on to provide provisions for amending the Nursing Act. In essence, the amendments deal with the power of an inspector to seek information and require the production of documents which, if not complied with, will result in criminal sanctions to a maximum of 50 penalty units. The provisions give a very wide power to the inspector and there is nothing within the bill that protects the right of the individual to question the authority of the inspector, nor is there provision for the type of written notice to be given, nor that it be sworn, and nor is there a right to seek redress to the court to have the document overturned. These are important questions to which, again, we will return when we debate the clauses. The bill states in clauses 123 and 124 the eligibility for special-purpose registration in relation to the Physiotherapists Registration Act 2001. It sets out the criteria that the board must consider in deciding if an applicant is eligible for special-purpose registration in terms of the act. The Physiotherapy Association has not raised any concerns in relation to the proposed legislation. Part 21 of the bill deals with the amendments to the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Act. It defines a smoking related product at clause 174(2) as— ... a product, prescribed under a regulation, that is used primarily in the consumption of a tobacco product, herbal cigarette or loose smoking blend. The concern is that, although this is a prescriptive provision, the details are left to the regulation, which will not be subject to the rigorous scrutiny of this House as the bill would be. Equally concerning is that the explanatory notes at page 39 do not assist in clarifying the question as to what will be a smoking product. The explanatory notes confirm that the smoking related product will be prescribed under regulation but then go on to state that these products are expected to include cigarette papers, filters et cetera. By the use of such ambiguous language uncertainty is created as to what may or may not be a smoking related product. Further, page 39 of the explanatory notes also states that a smoking related product is not expected to include lighters, lighter fluid et cetera. Again, this wording raises an ambiguity as to what is or is not a smoking related product. No-one is going to argue the pros and cons of smoking and the impact that it has. However, it is important that when a provision is prescriptive the details need to be contained within the terms of the bill, particularly when there are many people who are reliant upon the sale of items, including cigarette papers, matches, cigarette cases and many other items, for their livelihood. The bill needs to be tightened up. I do not believe that the use of a regulation is appropriate as the consequences can be significant. Another important provision contained in the bill is clause 180, which deals with smoke-free motor vehicles and provides for two offences. The bill states, firstly, that a person must not smoke in a motor vehicle if the vehicle is on a road or a road related area and the vehicle is being used for business use and if there is anyone else in the vehicle. Secondly, a person must not smoke in a motor vehicle if a person who is under 16 years of age is in the vehicle. The distinction between the two is that the latter vehicle is for private use, the former for business use. The first offence will lead to argument as to when a vehicle is being used for business use. For example, consider this set of facts: I am using my work vehicle and have my 17-year-old son in the car. I am driving first of all to my office to pick up some work papers, then to the shopping centre to do some shopping, then to provide a quote for business purposes and then drive home. The question could become during which of these uses can I smoke in the car and at what point of time can I not as it is a vehicle used for business purposes. There will be many families who would use their work ute on the weekend and combine both business and private purposes when travelling. There is no definition within the provisions to define what is a business use and I readily admit that that would be exceptionally difficult in today’s modern society. This is an unusual offence because, if we are looking at banning smoking in motor vehicles for, I assume, the protection of the driver and other occupants from passive smoking, why not simply ban the use of cigarettes in any vehicle? Why is it important to protect people in a business vehicle but not protect potentially the same person in a private vehicle? I know that the argument may be that in a private vehicle a person can refuse to get in. But, of course, that is not always the case and it would be impractical in many cases to refuse to get into a private vehicle, particularly a family vehicle. The proposed section 26VD provides a defence to section 26VC but it would appear that the provision in relation to smoking in a vehicle used for business purposes is an absolute offence. I ask the minister to confirm if that is the case. If it is, it is certainly draconian. Proposed section 26VD is a defence to the provision that a person must not smoke in a motor vehicle if a person under 16 is in the vehicle. It, however, reverses the onus of proof. It is up to the defendant to prove ‘that at the time of the offence the defendant honestly and reasonably believed that no person in the vehicle was under 16 years of age’. Can the minister advise why this reversal of onus of proof has occurred, given many past warnings that such clauses are contrary to the public good and the intent of the legislation? 2930 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 28 Oct 2009

Proposed section 26VE details provisions concerning evidence. Proposed subsection 2 details four issues that are deemed to be evidence of the matter (a) a person was under 16 years of age; (b) a thing was a smoking product; (c) a thing was a motor vehicle; (d) a place was a road or road related area. Proposed subsections 3 and 4 provide the mechanism to challenge either (a) or (b) requiring the defendant to give at least 14 days notice before the day fixed for the hearing of his intent to challenge the prosecution in the approved form. By implication it means that (c) and (d) cannot be challenged. Thus it would appear that, if the thing is stated to be a motor vehicle and that motor vehicle is on a road or road related area, that cannot be challenged under the terms of the act. Will the minister confirm that this is indeed the case? Clause 181 provides powers to local governments to prohibit smoking at public transport waiting points and malls. That power will be specifically inserted into the legislation by section 26ZPB and then provides a criminal sanction. Can the minister advise whether the state government in one way or another will provide funding to councils in relation to the implementation of this particular section if they take up the option provided. The final amendment is to the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act allows nurse practitioners to issue a workers compensation medical certificate for what is termed a minor injury which is defined as ‘an injury to a person that does not require hospitalisation of a person as an in-patient to properly treat the injury’. The issue of nurse practitioners is still very much under debate in Australia with the first nurse practitioner being registered in New South Wales in 2001. There are approximately 300 nurse practitioners working in Australia with most nurse practitioners performing primary care in the field of emergency department medicine within public hospitals, although there is an intention to expand the use of these nurse practitioners. In Queensland a small number of nurse practitioners have practised within EDs since 2005. Working within a public hospital these nurse practitioners see patients who are mostly infrequent attendees who cannot get in to see their GPs at short notice. Nurse practitioners also work in aged-care facilities, palliative care, general practice and rural and remote health care. In Western Australia, the first of a private chain of general health clinics opened in Perth in November 2008 staffed by nurse practitioners with no doctors. The clinics are set to run seven days a week and will provide primary care, including immunisations, treating infections and issuing prescriptions where appropriate. Patients will be required to supply the contact details of their GP and abnormal test results will be sent on to a GP. According to the clinics’ owners, Revive Group, the new clinics are not intended to replace general practices, but will help to address GP shortages. I have listed in the debate today a number of areas that the nurse practitioners in Western Australia are being utilised in. I wonder if the health minister, given that we are debating an expanded use of nurse practitioners in this bill, will elaborate on how he sees nurse practitioners in this state in time to come, again replicating the comment in Western Australia that GP shortages continue to exist. I will now turn to what I will call the national law bill. The opposition will be supporting this bill. However, there are some important reservations and conditions. I think it is important to look at some of the history as to how bill A came into existence, what occurred as a consequence of that and the changes that have now occurred in bill B. In July 2006 the Council of Australian Governments agreed to establish a single national registration scheme for health professionals beginning with the nine professionals then registered in all jurisdictions. From that the intergovernmental agreement was executed in March 2008. The agreement had as its purpose a single national registration and accreditation scheme in a combined form. The intergovernmental agreement at clause 2.6 stated that it was agreed to establish the scheme by 1 July 2010 and that Queensland was to be the host state. The first bill, or what came to be known as bill A, the Health Practitioner Regulation (Administrative Arrangements) National Law Bill, was introduced into this House in late 2008 and debated on 13 November 2008. The intergovernmental agreement, which was the cornerstone of bill A, was, to say the least, a poorly thought out and ridiculous document, placing the education and training of health professionals in the hands of state, territory and the Commonwealth health ministers and stripping the colleges, professional bodies and other entities of the powers that they had exercised so well for many years. The ministerial council established within the intergovernmental agreement had significant powers which overrode the long-term effective service provided, as I said, by the professions, institutions, colleges and professional organisations. In particular, page 5 of the intergovernmental agreement provided the responsibilities of the ministerial council. It must be understood that the ministerial council is not a body elected by the members of the various health professions referred to in the agreement nor under the terms of bill A or, indeed, bill B. It is, in fact, not answerable to any person as a group or individually, let alone to any parliament. In essence, it was a law unto itself, which posed significant problems in relation to whether an appropriate accreditation process to establish accreditation standards was being formulated and diluted the role of the colleges and professional bodies that have for so long provided excellent service to the people of Queensland and, indeed, Australia. 28 Oct 2009 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 2931

It was the intention that, by the terms of bills A and B, we would have placed the education, registration and accreditation of the health professionals ultimately into the hands of the unelected ministerial council. The concern with that was that the bureaucracy, which had been the problem in delivering to Queensland a health system that was teetering on the brink of disaster, would have been replicated. I think that it is important to hark back to an example I referred to in my speech to this House in November 2008 in relation to an article by Tony Morris QC titled The truth about quotas for medical specialists. In that article Tony Morris makes this comment— Normally, overseas-trained doctors who come to Australia seeking specialist appointments must obtain accreditation through the relevant specialist colleges. But Queensland Health found a way to bypass that requirement. This is how it works. First, you find a person who claims to have a specialist qualification in another country—as a surgeon, for example. You must be careful not to check his claims too closely; you might discover something that you don’t want to know about. The best way is to hire a private employment agency to headhunt the surgeon, and leave it to check his credentials. And you should make sure the agency is offered a very substantial fee, so it has a positive financial incentive to overlook any issues of possible doubt or concern. Secondly, you process your candidate through the Medical Board with the assurance that he will NOT be employed as a surgeon—merely as an assistant, acting under the supervision of a surgeon. Given such an assurance, the Medical Board will readily authorise him to work in Queensland, without requiring that he obtain accreditation from the RACS or any other specialist college. Thirdly, once your candidate has been cleared by the Medical Board, you are free to forget about any assurances which may have been given. You can appoint him to any position for which he claims to be competent. I tabled a copy of that article in this House on 13 November 2008. Let us be under no misapprehension that a bureaucracy can and has constructed the position we now face in Queensland. The real concern is that if the intergovernmental agreement had been implemented as bill B indicated and as the terms of the agreement expressed, it would have created the potential for more bureaucracy, more paperwork and more scope for error. The intergovernmental agreement, as stated in this House by the then minister and as referred to in the content of bill A, actually threatened to perpetuate a system that delivers to this very day a health system that is not catering for the growth or needs of Queensland. It, in fact, threatened to provide public servants and ministers of the Crown with even greater power than they have now not just in relation to the employment of health practitioners in the hospitals and the like; it actually gave them the power to say who could be a doctor, nurse or other health professional. That was the inherent danger contained within the first bill as a reflection of the intergovernmental agreement. The second real concern that arose as a consequence of bill A was the abhorrent attempt by this government and COAG to remove the jurisdiction of this parliament by vesting in the ministerial council such an incredible power that their actions could not be scrutinised by either this body or a body that had the authority and credentials to pose and demand answers to very serious questions. Whether or not the bill that now sits before parliament addresses that is a subject for further comment both in my speech in the second reading debate and, indeed, during consideration of the clauses of the bill. In relation to bill A, the opposition could not in any sense condone the terms. It was a very thinly veiled attempt to snatch the health agenda from those men and women who I have always said should have the major say in training, education placement and how hospitals operate and to place it in a group of men and women who simply have no current front-line service to deliver the needs of an effective and efficient public hospital system for the people of Queensland. Since November of 2008 to today’s date there has been intensive lobbying by health practitioners, health bodies, colleges, education entities and, indeed, government entities, including the Health Quality and Complaints Commission, who have made it quite clear that the continuation in bill B of the attitude in bill A would not be tolerated. It was made quite clear to COAG and the various health ministers across this nation that if bill A was replicated in bill B then the matter would again be a battle between those who know, that is the professionals, and those who think they know, that is the government bureaucracies and the ministers. Bill B is a triumph to the health practitioners who have forced COAG and this government to understand that, in essence, the training and accreditation should vest with those who are best able to understand what this nation and this state needs to have quality medical practitioners and health practitioners working with all Australians and, as far as this parliament is concerned, all Queenslanders. I must say it was also a testament to the common sense of COAG that it acknowledged that those who do work on the front line should have an intimate say in accreditation and education standards and, in part, that is reflected in the bill. There are certainly aspects of the bill with regard to the ministerial council in particular that raised concern—for example, the use of what the explanatory notes refer to as a reserve power being used in a manner that may again reflect the written word in the intergovernmental agreement—and we will come back to the issue of the content of bill B and the powers of the ministerial council in the clauses portion of the debate. I note that the Legislation Alert and, indeed, the greens highlighted major concerns in relation to the bill and how it reflects upon the power and obligation of this House to scrutinise legislation. That is particularly the case where we do not have an upper house. Again, I will return in the clauses section to those issues that were raised in the Legislation Alert. 2932 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 28 Oct 2009

It is now important to understand aspects of the bill that go to the changes that have occurred that have led the opposition to agree to support the bill but, again, with some very serious reservations and concerns. At the end of my contribution I will list the conditions under which we will support the proposal. As I said, the bill moves to significantly allay the fears of the professions, and it does this in a number of ways. The ministerial council still maintains ascendency in the hierarchy of the new scheme. Although there has been some diminution of powers, those powers can certainly still be of concern, and this can be seen in the contents of clause 11 dealing with the council’s capacity to issue directions and to exercise its reserve power. In addition, the council can ask at any time that a national agency or national board review and approve a proposed registration standard. It may not be apparent at first glance that these are significant powers that potentially may erode the national agency or national board of authority, but it is clear that the way in which the ministerial council wields such power will be carefully watched and scrutinised by both the professions and the opposition. The Australian Health Workforce Advisory Council is a body that I understand has not had a person appointed to it at this point. I understand that the ministerial council will rely upon that body to provide advice which the council is required to publish unless, of course, the advisory council recommends that publication should not occur in the interests of privacy. When we consider the terms of the bill it is uncertain what the word ‘advice’ means. For example, does it mean the full document—that is, the facts, the consideration of the facts and the advice and conclusion thereof, or is it simply the advice itself or the conclusion document that the ministerial council is required to publish? The national agency referred to in part 4 of the bill has its powers listed in clause 25 and can be sued and can sue in its corporate name. The agency has an obligation to enter into health profession agreements in relation to fees chargeable, the budget of the national board and the services to be provided by the agency of the board by way of human resources. Arguably, the most important entity in this whole regime could be the national board. It will cover up to 12 health professions when the bill comes into effect in July 2010 and an additional four from 1 July 2012. Clause 35 provides a significant number of functions the board has which would have been—if the intergovernmental agreement had been followed—vested in the ministerial council. In particular under this bill, the boards are required to deal with standards, codes, guidelines, approved accreditation programs, requirements of registration and endorsement, oversee the management of health practitioners and to give advice to the ministerial council on certain issues—just to name a few. The AMAQ and AMA have both welcomed the change in attitude in providing the boards with these powers. I also note without going into detail the membership of the relevant boards as defined within the bill which tends to require that a minimum of one-half and up to two-thirds of the boards must be practitioners within the field the board covers. As I said, national boards have a right to determine the accreditation of the health profession once the board is established. Each board is required to publish on its website how it will exercise its accreditation function, and the development of accreditation standards must include wide-ranging consultation about the content of the standard. It is the national boards which approve the accreditation standards and not the ministerial council, and that is an important point. It must be pointed out that the ministerial council continues to hold what is called—and what I have termed—a reserve power to give a policy direction about a proposed accreditation standard or a change to an approved accreditation standard. In addition, the national board will determine whether an applicant is eligible for registration. Registration can be termed general, specialist, provisional, limited, limited for area of need, limited in public interest and non-practising registration. The contents of the bill outline clearly when these may be sought, who may seek them, whether registration can be for a provisional period and how people can be removed from registration. Importantly, there is power in the national board to check an applicant’s criminal history, and they are required to do so before determining the application. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! After seeking further advice concerning the point of order raised by the member for Burnett previously, I wish to draw to the attention of the House that members should be careful not to refer to any matters that are currently before the courts as per standing order 233. Sitting suspended from 1.00 pm to 2.30 pm. Mr McARDLE: In particular, the criminal history includes a definition of ‘conviction’ to include a conviction where the conviction for an offence is not recorded and every charge made against a person. It was understood—and I understand why—that the criminal history check is made to ensure that a complete picture of the criminal history is available and because it is in the public interest to ensure those who are seeking registration are suitably qualified and fit to practise in one of the health professions. In addition, students are now required to be registered, and the national boards can determine when it is appropriate for that to occur. It may either be for the entire period they are enrolled or for a particular part of the program, that is, clinical placement. The national board writes to the education provider asking for details of students who are undertaking a program of study and the provider must then provide those details. Similarly, if a student is suspended for a condition imposed under clause 92, the education provider must be notified of the event. 28 Oct 2009 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 2933

The bill contains a number of other provisions that we will deal with during the debate on the clauses. However, there is one aspect of the notifiable conduct provision that I do want to touch upon. This bill also imposes requirements that employers of a registered health practitioner notify the national agency of notifiable conduct and an education provider must also notify the agency if there was a reasonable belief that a student may place the public at substantial risk of harm. The bill then goes on to provide that a notification procedure may be made to the national agency, either verbally or in writing, and a preliminary assessment must be completed within 60 days of receipt by the national board of the complaint pursuant to clause 14. I refer to a comment that was quoted in Alert Digest No. 12 of 2008 in relation to bill A. In his publication titled The constitutional systems of the Australian states and territories Professor Gerard Carney states—

A risk of many Commonwealth and State cooperative schemes is ‘executive federalism’; that is, the executive branches formulate and manage these schemes to the exclusion of the legislatures. While many schemes require legislative approval, the opportunity for adequate legislative scrutiny is often lacking, with considerable executive pressure to merely ratify the scheme without question. Thereafter, in an extreme case, the power to amend the scheme may even rest entirely with a joint executive authority. Other instances of concern include, for example, where a government lacks the authority to respond to or the capacity to distance itself from the actions of a joint Commonwealth and State regulatory authority. Public scrutiny is also hampered when the details of such schemes are not made publicly available. For these reasons, a recurring criticism, at least since the Report of the Coombs Royal Commission in 1977, is the tendency of cooperative arrangements to undermine the principle of responsible government. I hope the second bill will provide a resolution in relation to the obligations not only of the ministerial council but also, of course, of the national boards. I hope this is the genesis of a system that will improve the outcomes for medical graduates and health practitioners and deliver to the state and the Commonwealth a system of public health that helps every person enjoy the quality of life that they have come to expect. The opposition will support this bill, but it is upon the condition that the ministerial council and those agencies that act in accordance with the terms of this bill and the first bill live up to their obligations and that this government informs this parliament and the people of Queensland, on an ongoing basis, what is occurring both in the ministerial council and in the various boards and agencies by way of annual reports and the like. The bill offers hope that that will occur, with requirements for the publication of standards and the like. I hope that, as time goes by, we see that that trust has been properly placed. Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—LNP) (2.34 pm): Today we debate the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 and the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Bill 2009 cognately. The opposition supports these bills. Initially, I would like to address the national registration template, which results from a COAG process and is the second version. It repeals and replaces the first act. Critically, it is not the Commonwealth scheme but it is a health ministers’ scheme. The Commonwealth is unable to do anything since it has no legislative authority on this issue. Ultimately, it will apply to all states but it is very important to note that New South Wales has opted to control its own complaints-handling, investigation and review mechanisms. The bill sets out a national board for each of the 14 health professions. These boards can create national committees and state and territory boards to exercise its functions. There are two parts of the bill: a Queensland part and a schedule part that represents the national agenda. I will not go into detail regarding the schedule, but I would like to discuss what is good and what is not. The shadow minister has gone through it very carefully and I will not cover that territory. The general principle of the national standards is welcome, and the second template is a significant improvement. It does have the qualified support of the AMAQ and the majority of the representative medical boards. Potentially, there are six major areas where this bill template might fail. They are the boards and delegates, the ministers, the accreditation mechanism, the complaints mechanism, the associated fees and the add-ons. I will consider each group a little more closely. The boards will be very powerful, and it may be that they could develop into state political appointees and their delegates may be chosen not on merit but on either a political or other persuasion. There is a proven history of chosen members taking direction from their political masters. The minister retains reserve powers to overrule boards. It is not specified when and where those powers may be used. There will be an overriding board and there may be wrestling for power between them. Doctors and nurses are not known for their desire to be dictated to. Both the clash of egos and the difference in the methods of doing business may be just too difficult. I do not envy the health ministers. I sense that if they choose boards that are far too independent then their lives may be more awful than the life of a health minister already is. Alternatively, if they choose a meek board they may lose the professional support of that board and achieve very little. Of course, there are other professional health boards which have their own issues, and I believe that those will mirror some of the problems I have raised with regard to the medical and nursing boards. 2934 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 28 Oct 2009

The accreditation scheme is deemed to be a national one. It is very troubling that currently nurses and midwives do not have a national accreditation scheme. The journey ahead will be very hard, and it may take 10 years before we see a fully competent accreditation scheme operating. This will be challenging, and the task ahead is onerous. Accreditation is continuous and should inherently have no relationship to a complaints mechanism. I will discuss this later. It looks very much like someone thought it was a very good idea but did not look any further into it. As always, the devil is in the detail. Already the complaints mechanism looks flawed, with New South Wales seeking exemption from the inception of the scheme and wanting to run its own mechanism. The template prescribes that wherever the offence occurred in the state is where it will be investigated and possibly prosecuted. In practice, I have no doubt that over time all substantive cases will be dealt with in New South Wales. This early concession by all state health ministers will only accelerate the practice. The evidence from the occupational lung diseases cases, with the overriding Commonwealth legislation that protects that, should be the obvious learning curve. Cherry-picking and weakness in trying to ensure that all states comply would seem to summarise that problem. The fees issue is the one problem that the ministerial group either has not got a handle on or wants to avoid. It is going to be the big problem and it threatens this template and the other ones that will follow. I do not doubt any one of a number of groups will challenge the legal right of the health minister to charge them excessive registration fees and I suspect those groups will win. Humble pie has a really bad taste. The national scheme is overtly complex. The proposed administration is complex and is going to be expensive to operate. Fees are going to rise and those increases will be steep. The classifications are all similar but all will be affected. No cross-subsidisation is envisaged but, with 50 per cent of all normal deliveries being done by obstetricians and gynaecology patients suing for issues really relating to pain and suffering, which is a normal part of having a baby, then cross-subsidisation within each board is going to be the norm. This is because the civil litigation is often matched by spurious logged claims for malpractice against practitioners to facilitate settlement by intimidation. I see inquiry after inquiry on the horizon. The add-ons look to be the big issue to me. They are the sleepers of this bill. The psychologists have already flagged that the subspeciality clinical psychologists are not happy about new definitions that allow inadequately trained practitioners to do tasks for which they are not trained. I put it to government members, some of whom are psychologists themselves, that this is a compounding error, and I personally would recommend that the minister avoid this serious mistake. No doubt the medical speciality group will be horrified to see the flexibility the health ministers have granted themselves to facilitate perceived workforce issues, amongst other things. Those rights look very much like a capacity to pork-barrel electorates if and when they fancy. Sometimes a really too smart an idea can get one into a big spot of bother. It is just not worth it. I would think the new head ombudsman, not yet conceived, is going to be a very busy person and a politician might not like him either. They could be a politician’s nightmare. Is Professor Allan Fels looking for another job? I would like to move on to the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. This is one of those bills that seeks to tidy up lots of smaller related issues to health and other acts because they intrinsically come within the same community interests. The major areas of change relate to the Health Services Act, the Medical Practitioners Registration Act, the Physiotherapists Registration Act, the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act, the Public Health Act, the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Act and the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. I intend to go through each of the changes in surgical detail and discuss the benefits and failings of the changes that might not be readily apparent to non-medical people. The HQCC—that is, the Health Quality and Complaints Commission—in response to the review of the HQCC recommended an impact assessment to be undertaken prior to developing standards. In my original speech on 24 May 2006, I highlighted that the HQCC was an all-encompassing complaints body that would, firstly, endorse standards and quality; secondly, monitor standards; thirdly, investigate and report; and, fourthly, receive, monitor and manage complaints. This change is about undertaking an impact assessment. I have read the review and the government response. There are 37 recommendations, the final being a request for a further review in 2010. All recommendations were supported and a few were supported only in principle. I highlighted originally the really thorny question of how the HQCC would get stuck on standards and the prediction came true. Fortunately, the review suggestion was adopted and these recommendations were made. The standards issue is the obvious one. The HQCC decided it wanted to have its own standards when it is clearly obvious that standards which are inherently linked to accreditation are very difficult to develop and agree upon. People really need to understand how difficult it is to agree on universal standards. The standards generally have a research input, a testing phase, a trial phase, a consultation phase and an implementation phase. Recommendation 36 states that the Minister for Health consider an amendment to section 22 of the HQCC Act 2003 to include the requirement for the commission to undertake an impact assessment prior to the development of any future standards. 28 Oct 2009 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 2935

The summary review of reports and submissions by a variety of major contributors—from the acting director-general of Queensland Health, the PHAQ, Queensland Health itself and private hospitals—in summary all said exactly what I said would occur in 2006. This does not mean that the HQCC erred. What I might suggest is that the HQCC adopts appropriate standards that are used elsewhere. The issue raised about VMOs is very well put in that they are not full-time salaried employees, as are many in the public hospitals. VMOs represent a core contributor to both excellence and service delivery providers in our health system. This continuing idea that Queensland Health exists in a vacuum is preposterous and must end. Queensland Health is part of the wider medical fraternity. Whilst HQCC feels that it needs ownership of this process and thereby made its decision to go ahead with an impact assessment, then let it do so. I would say that after years of experience with accreditation this is ego driven, ivory tower behaviour. It is almost certain to lead to conflict and ultimately failure. Standards are achieved by consensus, road testing and inclusion of all parties. I suspect that one can do an impact assessment and then deliver an impact statement that addresses an internal command but achieve nothing. This will remain the HQCC Achilles’ heel and its resistance to change on this issue its greatest foe. The HQCC annual report for 2007-08 does not really tell me much about its role, its response and process. The 2008-09 report has not been released yet. I would hope it has much more information. This issue of standards and rollout is very important, and at its core represents all that a body such as the HQCC refers back to itself. I genuinely believe that it has, on the one hand, become too close to Queensland Health that it cannot see the wood for the trees regarding where convenient exceptions might be made and, on the other hand, is being way too imperious in its view regarding medical entities existing outside Queensland Health. For HQCC to be effective, it needs to totally distance itself both in a structural and in a philosophical way. It must embrace wider standards and also in doing so not allow itself to be either compromised or irrelevant in an area—such as medicine—that is not a level playing field. I say this because Thargomindah is different from Townsville, Chinchilla is different from Prince Charles, Ascot from Aramac and Gaven from Gladstone. What works in one may not work in another but the principles are the same. On reflection, I suspect that the HQCC wants to be a standards setting, implementing and reviewing body that in particular is focused on Queensland Health. Its complaints, investigations, review and compliance areas would seem to me to be totally separate to the other standards component, and that link needs to be separated. The reason for this is that, just as one in politics needs to recognise and understand the principle of the separation of powers, equally the HQCC cannot be all in one—that is, it cannot be the standard setter, bearer and adjudicator and also manage complaints from the public and those involved in being assessed on standards. This is the point I clearly made earlier. It is time for the HQCC and our parliament to split these functions. There will be a real progression to standards that link beyond Queensland Health to all our areas, other states and even other First World countries. Similarly, the complaints and investigative functions will pursue a proper direction freed from the shackles of standards that are set by this investigative and review body itself. The investigative and complaints body will then be freed from the ‘Caesar judging Caesar’ problem. I have extensively reviewed all of the other reports of every other state including some from overseas, such as New Zealand. No other legislative area is attempting to do both roles that the HQCC continues to do. There are no other comparable situations in any other First World country that I have examined. All separate their functions. Not only is Queensland out of step; it is ‘pushing uphill’ tax for no benefits to either itself or the public. The government needs to review itself urgently on this issue and separate these areas. It would send a very positive message to all groups. This is progress and at least recognition that the functions within the organisation are so different that they should not be joined. I do not see the impact statement achieving this. What it might do is alert more to the sense of urgency about doing something positive to fix what many others see as the problem. At present nothing it does will be seen as transparent but beholden to a funder-owner parent—Queensland Health, the state government—who is also its biggest client. Once this step is complete, the logical progression is for a rejuvenated HQCC, having shed its complainer-investigative section, to become a standards accumulator, reviewer, surveyor, accreditor and publisher of those results. It could involve the professions widely and its future would become more positive. As for the investigative, complaints and conciliation sector, it will thrive in an environment where it is free to pursue direction that might otherwise be harmful to its parents. It logically might fit as an arm of the medical registration board, which is clearly more appropriate. The Medical Practitioners Registration Act 2001 and the Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999 are being amended to introduce mandatory reporting of professional misconduct by doctors. It is no secret that this is opposed by the AMAQ. The legislation requires that a medical practitioner must supply a written report if they become aware of or suspect misconduct. Failure to do so would subject them to disciplinary action. I put to honourable members that this will not work in practice. 2936 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 28 Oct 2009

Several examples were put to this House earlier by the shadow minister, including the situation of a husband and wife who are both doctors and where one is legally compelled to report another where misconduct might be assumed to have occurred. There are many other examples including people reporting others for reasons that have nothing to do with true misconduct and maybe for overly commercial reasons. I see this type of legislation as reactive, when the Bligh Labor government has had its own serious failings in health where it allowed Queensland Health to utterly fail to do its own proper probity checks on employed staff. Compounding these errors, the government then failed in its own supervisory role, such as in Bundaberg, and latterly it has completely failed to understand what is going on in public health out in the real world. Bligh and Labor are trying to play catch-up in multiple areas of health, but chasing headlines rather than focusing on improving outcomes will not deliver them the results they seek. Mandatory reporting in that method proposed will fail. The existing process of reporting all incidents to medical defence groups would appear to address this concern. It works. Why window-dress to cover up Queensland Health’s and the government’s poor record? Some might interpret these comments as political point-scoring. They are not. Health care is an inexact science. There is no one way to do anything. It continually evolves as new information is acquired. Many medical breakthroughs have been made by pioneers who endured both personal and professional criticism to make their medical breakthroughs. This silly law would have probably had the Nobel Prize winner Dr Barry Marshall, co-discoverer of Helicobacter pylori as the cause of gastric and duodenal ulceration, reported for a significant medical breach. Does the minister know what his offence would have been? He would have been mandatorily reported for illegally swallowing cultured unknown gastric bacteria from the hospital pathology lab. He would have had to report himself. Do not think it will not happen. It will, and it will prevent both scientific advancement and other change for the good. At a much lower level, it will prevent doctors talking to one another about medical problems they face in every day patient care. Medical staff believe in an open, trusting and inherently learning environment to manage a patient’s care. Honesty is critical in health care, and politicians have a bit to learn in this area. For those who do not understand, the group is the public—and that is you all. Doctors talk about your problems with one another to seek solutions for you all. Mr Lucas: Doctors are the only profession who have ever had to confront these issues, are they? Dr DOUGLAS: No, I did not say that. Your privacy is maintained, but no one person has all the answers. This totally facile legal requirement in the bill is seeking to address some ideological need. It does nothing to address the public need. The small number of people it will help will be totally overwhelmed by the vast majority it will help. I would ask the minister to withdraw this part of the bill. It is antipatient. I personally have spent the bulk of my working life in hospitals and then in general practice for the last 20 years. I spent 15 years as a VMO for Corrective Services. For a long period, I have spent time with many difficult criminals and non-criminal addictive patients. These people spend a great deal of time spiralling around doctors and nurses. A great deal of these types of patients complain incessantly that most things are not being done for them. Similarly, their families complain, but we are used to complaints. As a doctor, they do not worry me and most of the time they have a solution. This bill has the potential to cause us personal, professional and financial harm. I have a great deal of difficulty encouraging colleagues to continue looking after this group. What sort of message is the government considering sending to doctors about taking on this responsibility, when the message from the minister is that they are going to be reported? No doctor who is doing this work in particular should have to defend their actions continuously in writing because they suspect misconduct or someone else does. They are being threatened with disciplinary action. It is no wonder medical staff will not support this. By all means, the public needs protection but laws need to reflect where there is a problem and respond to that. There is no problem here. The government has failed the public. The acid test has to be found deep in the bowels of the Davies report. The nursing staff and medical staff were reporting the problems. Do you know who was not listening? Honourable members, you were not listening. For years, the member for Burnett has been taunted for his championing of these poor people from Bundaberg Hospital. This is all our shame now. The suffering continues for those who survived; for those who did not survive, it is their families who continue to suffer. I must ask that members see that their suffering is all of our responsibility to both bear and attempt to resolve, yet this bill is targeting medical professionals in a lazy, blame-shifting exercise to massage the Labor government’s own fear of a hostile attack from its constituency for not only doing nothing when it was in charge but blame shifting and distancing itself from the tragedy of Bundaberg. I can only agree with those who say that it will create a culture of fear amongst health professionals. I also agree with medical colleagues that it will lead to retaliation and patients will be the ones who will suffer the consequences. 28 Oct 2009 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 2937

The issue I believe the Medical Board shares is that those doctors who are impaired will both not be reported and not report themselves—for reasons from sickness to substance abuse including addictions. Again, the current situation is not perfect but not bad and is audited. This proposal sends us back 40 years. What we are seeing is a dumbing down strategy of service delivery that starts with nurse practitioners and probably ends with delivering allied health care areas as registrants probably only to those Brisbane-centric supporters. This is a selfish bill. This government was called upon to rise up to a challenge, but this Bligh Labor government has again failed to respond with broad shoulders. Where foresight was called for, the government’s myopic response was weak indeed. To sum up both bills alone is that there really are no notes in health for politicians, but mercifully in Australia we have a right to education and we as a nation believe health care is a right. I am a doctor and I am obviously biased, but I firmly believe that if you do not have your health you do not have a life. (Time expired) Dr FLEGG (Moggill—LNP) (2.55 pm): I am pleased to rise to speak in this cognate debate on the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Bill and the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Bill. I say at the outset that I find a number of the stated objectives of the bills we are debating to have potential advantages. If it is done well, I think there is an opportunity to improve some of the things we currently do. Let me begin by saying that the bills refer to the current fragmented regulation and excessive red tape, and therefore an objective is to reduce that. I can tell the House that it is in fact the case and I hope that is the end result. I will give the House one example. A practice that wants to employ an area-of- need doctor in Queensland—and that would be the majority of general practices, indeed all of them in rural and regional Queensland and most of them in outer metropolitan Queensland—has to go to the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing first and apply to have a district of workforce shortage. They are then given an answer of yes, no or, in most cases, TBA—that is, to be advised—and they have to actually show evidence of advertising and make a case. If they are able to achieve their federal government district of workforce shortage, they then can go to the state Medical Board to get an area of need number—that is, they do exactly the same thing all over again. But it is worse than that, and I do hope this bill will fix the problem. After they have their DWS, they have to go and find a doctor, bearing in mind that medical registration for area of need doctors is location specific. They then have to make application for their area of need number. They fill in an employer form from the Queensland Medical Board form No. 104, which I will table for the benefit of any members who are interested. Tabled paper: Office of the Medical Board, Queensland government, form titled ‘Area of Need—Certification for General Practitioner (GP) Positions—Form 104’ [1169]. They have to make another larger submission, similar to what they made to the federal government, to justify to the state body why it is an area of need. They have to do an impact of service delivery statement. They have to consult the stakeholders, who actually include their competitor practices in the same area, and they are not likely to say that they need an area of need doctor. They have to show proof of advertising again. They have to provide documents at every step of the way. The doctors, who are usually from overseas countries so are not wealthy doctors, cannot have a provider number because they are only allowed one and it is location specific. The whole process takes up to three months, so that is three months that these doctors who have frequently not been in Australia for long spend without any income. The doctors then have to take the state area of need number to get their medical registration. If they are just moving up the road—that is, if there has been a problem in one practice and they have to move to another—they have to do the whole thing all over again, but because they can only hold one registration number, they have to resign their registration number before the process can begin. They are then barred from work, even though they may have been working here for a number of years. If the minister has an interest in that, I am more than happy to consult him because this is how it is and I have cases of this. All of this is on top of the visa requirement. Mr Lucas: I am always happy to take on constructive suggestions. Dr FLEGG: And I am attempting very much to be constructive here, because I think the government has a chance to make things better with the bill and I hope that is the end result. So all of this is on top of the doctor’s own things that he has to do for his registration. This is the sort of duplication and red tape that keeps doctors away from work, keeps patients away from having doctors, and causes a great deal of hardship. If you take the practices that depend on an area-of-need doctor—that is, rural and regional and pretty much all of the outer metropolitan ones— if an existing practitioner gets sick or injured or something happens to an existing practitioner, they have to go through this whole process. So there is no possibility of quickly replacing somebody within those practices because this is an invariably lengthy process. We have even got to the point now where for some of these processes they are forbidden telephone contact and only accept email contact but rarely 2938 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 28 Oct 2009 reply to the emails—and, again, I am happy to take it up with the minister. Let us hope that we can cut some of this red tape and improve medical services, because a lot of this is pure bureaucracy. Most of these doctors are already working here, have already been assessed, have already been registered with the Queensland Medical Board and are simply transferring from one place to another. I cannot really tell—and the minister might care to comment—what happens in relation to the relationship that is referred to in the bill as co-regulatory between the national board and the state boards. It does not appear to say that we are only going to have one board. It appears to say that we are still going to have two boards, at least initially. I would think there is potential for a significant cost saving but perhaps even more importantly a red-tape saving. But it is not at all clear to me what ‘co-regulatory’ means in the context of this bill. It appears to me that we will still have the Health Quality and Complaints Commission. It appears to me that we will still have a state Medical Board, but I am not certain. I am getting a ‘no’ from the minister, so I am pleased to hear that. Mr Lucas: But in big professions like medicine you will need to have state boards, or sub-boards, for want of a better word, because you would have the national board dealing with things forever. You would never get anything else done other than— Dr FLEGG: There will have to be a state office, okay. That is good. The national scheme is set to begin on 1 July 2010. That is going to be a challenge, because this is a huge change to something that has been in place for a long time. I remember 30 years ago when I had to transfer my registration from the Northern Territory to Queensland, and it was pretty simple in those days. I think we had a face-to- face interview with Sir Evan Thomson, as I recall, a very prominent Brisbane surgeon, on behalf of the Medical Board, and he had to okay me, which he did, fortunately, so I am here. As well as that tight time frame, this is bill B. We have had bill A. This is bill B. There is another bill to put this into effect, which is bill C. We have gone bill A and bill B, and bill C is yet to come, and that will obviously repeal some existing health practitioner legislation. I note that the cost that has been allowed for this is $19.8 million and there is no ongoing cost; it will be self-funding. I would have to say to the House, in the words of Darryl Kerrigan from The Castle, ‘Tell ‘em they’re dreaming.’ They have no chance of putting this in place for $19.8 million. If Queensland represents about 20 per cent of Australia, as we usually do for cost matters, that would be $4 million. I understand that is the national figure. The cost of running this has a risk of being very high and resulting in very punitive registration fees, as the member for Gaven has already pointed out. Many of the functions of these boards benefit the community and I would question, particularly if these are going to be punitive levels, whether perhaps the community has a contribution to make for the areas that are of community benefit. I will be interested to hear what the minister has to say about the role of the Health Quality and Complaints Commission, which is ongoing in a national scheme. My understanding of the national scheme—and I drew a mud map to try to help me understand it—is that the ministerial council is at the top, the national board sits underneath that, and underneath the national board sits accreditation authorities and tribunals to deal with disciplinary standards. It makes provision for things like registration standards, compulsory liability insurance, compulsory continuing professional development—I do not think there would be any problem with those—accreditation standards for things like programs of study and, for the educators who provide those programs, codes or guidelines such as a code of conduct. The actions that can be taken by the national board include findings in relation to the method of practice. This would be the case where a medical practitioner’s method of practice is bizarre or significantly different from the norms, and one can only hope that this is applied in an appropriate way. As the member for Gaven said, there are cases where somebody whose practice has not been the norm has made a significant contribution. However, I can see the need to have such a provision. It will make findings in relation to the impairment of doctors, which is a very big issue, and it comes under a number of different ways. In relation to students, interestingly, medical students and other health students are caught up in this bill, I would say in some cases for the first time. Again, I see that as appropriate. I do not have a problem with it. In fact, I think that is one of the positive things that I find in the bill. Mr Lucas: Unlike, for example, law, with medicine you are very hands-on in the final years of your university education so you actually have to have some supervision. Dr FLEGG: I think that is an advantage of the bill. There are penalties if you are convicted of an offence that attracts a penalty of more than 12 months in jail. I do not think anyone would have a problem with that. Actions which the board may take if any of those findings are made include: no action, placing conditions on the person’s ability to practise, a caution, a referral to a complaints entity such as the Queensland Health Quality and Complaints Commission, or a referral from the panel to a tribunal which can have implications for that practitioner’s registration. Legal representation is allowed to be present but is not the default position, in the words of the bill. This means that a person has to be given leave to have legal representation in some of these hearings. I would be interested in the minister’s comments on that, because I do see legal representation as something of a right, as I think most people do. It would be interesting to hear his comments. 28 Oct 2009 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 2939

The panel operating under the national body can find somebody guilty of unsatisfactory professional performance—read ‘poor standards’; professional misconduct—read ‘misbehaviour’; or impairment. I have some things to say later in relation to impairment, because I think it is a difficult area for this bill. One can understand why it is there but it is a difficult area. The tribunal is heard in public but the panels are not heard in public. The tribunals will be state based. Interestingly—and this is different from the usual practice in certain other tribunals—they will award costs, which I have not heard any comment on. They can put in a range of penalties including a caution, impose a condition on the practice or, like football coaches who misbehave at the sideline, they can impose a fine up to $30,000. They can suspend registration. They can cancel registration. There are probably no great surprises there. Subdivision 4 has a restriction on advertising. I am a believer that we need a restriction on advertising, so I was pleased to read that, but I could not gather from the bill exactly what sorts of advertising activities would be prohibited. I certainly hope that some of these sex therapy clinics might get caught up in the restrictions on advertising because I think they have been grossly misleading, but perhaps the minister might clarify what subdivision 4— Mr Lucas: I might keep my views to myself on that one. Dr FLEGG: The minister might know more about the sex clinics than I do. But I am interested in hearing his comments on the advertising, not on the treatment that he got there. I want to talk about division 2 of the bill, which is about mandatory reporting. I personally—in one case in particular—have been heavily involved in reporting misconduct by doctors. One such case ran on national media prior to my entry into politics. In my 30-year medical career, I have seen many cases—and I have personally reported a number of them and, as I say, one in a very high-profile manner. In the area of intoxication by alcohol or drugs where mandatory reporting is required, I have to say that I do not have a problem. I have absolutely no time for anyone who turns up to care for the public under the influence of alcohol or drugs. I think throwing the book at them is quite appropriate. In that regard, I see no problem with mandatory reporting. In the area of sexual misconduct, which is specifically dealt with in this bill, I have seen at least three or four of such episodes. I find them extremely distasteful. Once again, I have no problem whatsoever with mandatory reporting. The more difficult area is for the impaired doctor. An impaired doctor can be someone who, for example, is suffering a mental illness, which is often something like depression or a condition that can be fluctuating where they are better sometimes than at other times. I have seen somebody who has an acquired brain injury through suffering a head injury in a car accident. I have seen a slowly progressive condition such as dementia as an issue impairing doctors. An impairment could be a physical disability, for example, the deterioration of somebody’s vision who is maybe doing some procedures. All of those conditions would be caught under the mandatory reporting provisions of this bill. I think the significant departure from accepted standards is quite difficult. Doctors find that very difficult, because it is quite subjective. But there are occasions where I think it is a danger to the public and where it might be a problem. This bill says that your insurer and your lawyer are exempt and do not have to report you, but your spouse is not exempt and your treating doctor is not exempt. Mr Lucas: Particularly if they are a practitioner. Dr FLEGG: If they are a practitioner, naturally, yes. The provision applies only to a practitioner. But there are cases in that impaired category where I think this provision is going to pose a problem. It will pose a problem because those medical practitioners with depression or the beginning of dementia will be—and I can assure the House of this, having had many years in the profession—reluctant to seek treatment and, in many cases, will not seek treatment. It is a problem to get dementia patients, whether they are doctors or not, to seek treatment. Doctors will be very reluctant to go to a psychiatrist or a neurophysician with these sorts of problems. I think it is an issue that needs to be considered. It will lead to services being offered on an anonymous basis so that the treating doctors do not know the health professionals whom they are treating and, obviously, could not be expected to report them. Some of those services are already available on an anonymous basis. Clause 142(1) deals with an employer. I want to speak about this clause, because I think in framing the bill there was not the full understanding that in general practice employment by major companies and publicly listed companies is a major part of the market. Mr Lucas: I must say I was surprised when I learned that, but it is certainly the case—massively. Dr FLEGG: In areas where there are problems of the type that there should be mandatory reporting, those types of employers will be overrepresented because of the hunger for those businesses—they are big businesses; they need lots of doctors—to employ anybody. It looks to me as though the requirement is harsher for some doctor who happens to be sitting in the next room and who probably works only part-time than it is for the employer. I do not see how the public company is adequately dealt with under this legislation. Perhaps the minister can reassure us. Is the liability on the company? Is the liability on the company’s manager in that particular medical centre? I can guarantee 2940 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 28 Oct 2009 the minister that a substantial proportion of the problems that are going to arise are going to arise in larger clinics, which will be predominantly owned by corporations. Although the bill contains provisions relating to an employer who fails to report, the punishment for a practitioner—obviously around their registration and the like—looks to be of a much higher standard. Yet it is not clear what the standard for an employer is. In many cases these employers hold contracts with their staff for many years. They provide the pathology and X-ray services that are located up the hall, yet the mandatory reporting looks to fall most heavily on professional colleagues in an adjoining room than on those people in those powerful positions. No-one wants to dob in a mate in the workplace. Have a look at MPs— (Time expired) Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—LNP) (3.15 pm): Before addressing the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 and the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Bill 2009 in this cognate debate, I wish to place on record my association with the medical profession in that I am a former registered nurse and married to a general practitioner with our own medical practice. The Health and Other Legislation Amendment Bill was introduced into the parliament on 23 April 2009 by the Minister for Health, the honourable member for Lytton, and seeks to amend a large number of Health portfolio acts along with the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 and the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. The government has voted to debate the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Bill 2009, introduced by the health minister on 6 October, at the same time as we debate the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009, thereby exhibiting—despite profferings otherwise—how unimportant they think this legislation is. One bill, which included supposedly important smoking laws, has sat on the Notice Paper for over six months and the other, containing national laws, a mere three weeks. In what appears to be a recurring pattern, the Bligh government has bunged them in together to suit its questionable agenda. There are some positive aspects to these bills and, as we have heard from my side of the House, the LNP has stated that it is giving them their guarded support. Honourable members have heard from the shadow minister, the honourable member for Caloundra, that the LNP has considerable reservations about aspects of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Bill and will be moving some amendments. In addressing part 1 of the national bill in November last year, the honourable member for Caloundra described it as a ‘sugar-coated toxic blend’ of reform, as did many health professionals. In the minister’s second reading speech for the first bill before us today, he announced that it contained a number of important changes that will enhance the safety of all Queenslanders. In fact, he almost made it sound like a panacea for all ills. The minister stated— The most significant amendments seek to: better protect our children and the wider community from the harmful effects of smoking; safeguard patients from the professional misconduct of medical practitioners with the introduction of mandatory reporting; strengthen the accountability of the Health Quality and Complaints Commission in setting healthcare standards which assist in its role of monitoring health service quality and independently reviewing complaints. The minister’s federal mate, Mr Rudd, created much fanfare—as is the prerequisite for any Labor leader—by saying that he would take over the public health system if the states did not perform better. We are all waiting—just like the patients in the never-ending public hospital queues. This gushing Prime Minister boasts about reforming the ailing health scheme by creating the biggest review of our Australian health system since the introduction of Medicare and then proceeds to create divisions among key healthcare groups, namely, doctors and nurses, but also other professionals such as psychologists, podiatrists and physiotherapists, to name a few. When the first stage of Rudd’s health legislation was debated in this House in November 2008, the concerns of various stakeholder groups were well articulated by the shadow minister and subsequent LNP members. As we debate state and national legislation here today, there is no doubt that this legislation is part of the grand plan—the collectivist approach to health care that has failed miserably in the UK. A big concern for a number of medical bodies was that the November legislation passed absolute control of the Australian medical standards to governments and bureaucrats, which meant that if the politicians have authority for medical education, training courses and professional standards for medical practice, the profession would lose its ability to maintain the highest professional standards. The former AMA president, Dr Capolingua, believes that the international recognition of Australian medical training has been put at risk. But what else should Dr Capolingua expect from a period of wall-to-wall Labor governments which has made doctor bashing an art form? Sure there are some bad apples in medicine, just as there are in any profession. Just take a look at the corrupt bunch opposite. Labor’s obsession in lowering morale, crushing spirits and not listening to concerns of health professionals has seen confidence in the public health system fall to an all-time low. It is no surprise that the medical fraternity are not welcoming a number of provisions contained within this bill. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Johnstone): Order! The honourable member would remember the comments made by the Speaker this morning about unparliamentary conduct and language. I ask that you withdraw that comment. 28 Oct 2009 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 2941

Mrs STUCKEY: Which comment exactly? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The lying comment about corruption. Mrs STUCKEY: I did not use the word lie. Mr Finn: You have been asked to withdraw Mrs STUCKEY: I will just withdraw. I will continue. Labor’s obsession in lowering morale, crushing spirits and not listening to concerns of health professionals has seen confidence in the public health system fall to an all-time low. It is no surprise that the medical fraternity are not welcoming a number of provisions contained within this bill as they have been at the short end of the stick under the rule of state Labor governments and now they are captives of the socialists who are trying the same attack on a federal level and calling it reform. In May of this year AMA Vice President, Dr Gary Speck, felt the national registration and accreditation proposal, which we debated here in the Queensland parliament last December, was a very serious bureaucratic government intrusion. He believes it will turn out to be a grave threat to the health of the people of Australia and to their doctors and says— Like freedom, access to high quality doctors and health care is not appreciated until it is lost. The National Registration and Accreditation Bill was a total rewrite of the registration process and allowed ministerial interference which is clearly unhealthy. I am pleased to see the government at the last minute include changes negotiated by key stakeholders that will require the ministerial council to give consideration to the potential impact of a direction on the quality and safety of health care. Whilst the LNP are supportive of this move, we will be keeping a close eye on how this is implemented. Amendments that include mandatory reporting in provisions in this bill have raised the argument that this form of reporting is being used as a political tool in response to cases of rogue doctors such as Jayant Patel. Undisputedly, revelations of this doctor’s malpractice have eroded the public’s trust and confidence, as did the manner in which this Labor government handled the whole affair once the whistleblower nurses’ accusations were made public. Mr MOORHEAD: I rise to a point of order. The matter referred to by the honourable member is the subject of criminal proceedings in another place and subject to the sub judice rules of the parliament. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I caution the member under the sub judice rule and ask that you refrain from that argument. Mrs STUCKEY: Amendments that include mandatory reporting in provisions in this bill have raised the argument that this form of reporting is being used as a political tool in response to previous incidents with doctors. Undisputedly, revelations of doctor malpractice have eroded the public’s trust and confidence as has the manner in which the Labor government has handled these affairs once whistleblower nurses’ accusations were made public. Industry stakeholders question whether mandatory reporting is the appropriate mechanism to protect the general public’s health and safety from doctors who may be putting patients at risk of harm especially when one considers that there are some already established frameworks such as incident management, reporting, open disclosure and doctors’ health services in existence. The accusation here, told to me by an AMA spokesperson, is that health bodies prefer to protect doctors whose practices are substandard rather than to protect the health and safety of their patients. That really is quite an offensive statement for the government to insinuate. As we well know on this side of the House, Labor does not like doctors. Just look at how it treats them in the public system. It works them until they drop. During my research with stakeholders regarding this legislation I was told that mandatory reporting may lessen the likelihood of a practitioner seeking advice, support or treatment from a colleague. I wonder whether this legislation will work. The fear of mandatory reporting and thus a lack of confidentiality was specified in a suicide note left by a doctor in December 2008. He specifically blamed mandatory reporting laws as preventing him from turning to colleagues for support and advice. As I said, the obligation to report may make doctors less likely to volunteer to staff health advisory services. Fear of being reported means that they are less likely to seek help if they know this will happen. The recent revelations of working conditions of many training doctors in the public health system are reason enough to prevent disclosures whether they have Queensland Health indemnity or not. There is still a degree of uncertainty as to what constitutes departure from accepted medical standards or misconduct in the practice of the profession and, as the honourable member for Moggill outlined, the case of impaired doctors. Medical boards are in place in each state to assess complaints made by doctors or the public against doctors. The complaint is considered, heard, judged and acted upon with the accused doctor entitled to full legal defence. Outcomes vary from dismissal of the case to deregistration of the doctor and, if serious enough, court proceedings. Additionally, stakeholders have identified problems with the devil in the detail of this primary legislation, as has the shadow minister. Exemptions would be required 2942 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 28 Oct 2009 in circumstances such as a registered medical practitioner who is the spouse of another registered medical practitioner or a registered medical practitioner who works for a medical indemnity insurer whose advice may be being sought regarding the reportable misconduct of the other registered medical practitioner. The government needs to get this right before proceeding further as there are still loopholes. Doctor fatigue has long been a problem in Queensland public hospitals but nothing has been done to address it for years. Only when a damning media article appeared did the government whip up a response. What a shameful response that was. Let them drink coffee, lots of coffee. What sort of remedy is that? Caffeine is addictive in large quantities and certainly is no panacea for staying awake so long. I guess it once again proves how little this government values doctors. A sample of replies to the Salaried Doctors Queensland fatigue survey conducted by the doctors’ union undertaken in May-June of 2009, who were mostly trainee doctors—our future—found that 70 per cent of respondents admitted to making mistakes at work due to fatigue when prescribing medications and writing patient chart information. I quote some of them— I was so tired I went to sleep in a chair next to the patient’s bed when I was inserting a cannula. The patient had to wake me up because my beeper was keeping her awake. Another said— One night after 45 hours straight without sleep I forgot to re-check an elderly patient. I was fluid loading and four hours later she coded. I attended her resuscitation. She died. Most likely overloaded. I am still having nightmares. Another doctor stated— I put a chest drain in the wrong side after 30 hours of work. Another stated— I have been so fatigued I have fallen asleep while performing surgery, literally slumping forward while standing over the patient’s open body. Is the government expecting these doctors to dob each other in? I note the minister’s comments in the House yesterday about a certified agreement that would, amongst other things, address fatigue management. From the above cases this is certainly long overdue. Amendments to the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act will allow for full implementation of the nurse practitioner role which was a 2004 Labor election commitment. This will enable nurse practitioners to issue workers compensation certificates for a minor injury at the patient’s initial attendance. The minister also says referral of these patients is often required for the sole purpose of obtaining a workers compensation medical certificate. This amendment in particular is fraught with poor judgement and shows what a superficial grasp this minister and his government have on health issues. A workers compensation certificate is a complicated document and nothing like a routine sickness certificate. It requires the skills and expertise of a fully qualified medical practitioner. I wonder whether the minister has ever seen one. These certificates take about 40 minutes to fill in properly and call for a diagnosis, whether it is provisional or proven; the relationship between the symptoms and the injury; any pre-existing conditions that may be relevant to the diagnosis; the worker’s capacity to work; the likely prognosis—which is crucially important, by the way, to the injured worker—clinical findings on physical examination; suggested investigations; a medical management plan; and a rehabilitation and return-to-work plan. I table a copy of one of those for the interest of the minister so that he can see just how detailed these documents are. Tabled paper: Q-Comp form titled ‘Workers’ Compensation Medical Certificate’ [1170]. It has been estimated that up to 95 per cent of workers compensation cases do not require hospitalisation but may well require considerable investigations. Injuries that initially seem minor often turn out to be anything but. The statement that referral of these patients to a medical officer is often required for the sole purpose of obtaining a workers compensation certificate would be viewed as offensive by any member of the medical profession, not to mention the disregard for the seriousness of a patient’s injury. Just what is a minor injury? On page 118 of the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Bill the definition states— Minor injury means an injury of a person that does not require the hospitalisation of the person as an in-patient to properly treat the injury. This is really scary when we consider what I said earlier about some 95 per cent of people with minor injuries not requiring a stay in hospital. Over the years there has been a marked trend away from admitting patients to hospital if they can be managed at home, and there has also been an increase in day surgery operations. A care management plan involving doctors, nurses and therapists is frequently put in place and coordinated by a GP in close consultation with allied health workers. All this is about to change with the fragmented care that is being suggested by provisions within this bill. 28 Oct 2009 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 2943

Will a soft tissue injury be classified a minor injury? How will nurses rate stress fractures and severe RSI? All of these can lead to ongoing problems, and what if there are pre-existing conditions or underlying complications? How can the minister be sure that nurse practitioners will not act beyond their scope of practice and perform tasks they are neither skilled nor qualified to undertake? What happens if they make mistakes that harm a patient immediately or down the track by ordering wrong or inadequate tests? How can we be sure the patient will not be disadvantaged by receiving a diagnosis from a nurse practitioner? We have all heard of people trying to rort the system by making false workers compensation claims and no doubt we have seen malingerers exposed on numerous TV shows. However, the majority of cases are legitimate and deserving of well-qualified attention. Having suffered several soft tissue injuries, with one requiring several days in hospital, and living with residual pain, I can tell honourable members I would not feel confident being treated by a nurse, and neither would a number of people to whom I have spoken in relation to the bill. In fact, I have not yet spoken to a nurse currently working in a hospital who is supportive of these moves. As a former nurse, I am well aware of the critical role that nurses play in the care continuum. So before members opposite bellow at me for not standing up for nurses, let me place on the record my enormous admiration for the work they do. It is emotionally, physically and mentally draining and there are rotten hours to boot. Quite rightly, nurses are held in high regard by the community at large, rating as one of the most trusted of all workers—way above politicians, who rank near the bottom of the popularity list. With the direction that Labor governments are taking with regard to health in the name of reform, I am genuinely worried that they are pitting doctors and nurses against each other without putting the patient first. This is a truly dangerous move as it has the potential to disconnect patient care when connected care is essential. Close communication and collaboration are critical to safe, responsible patient care. It is to be hoped that as the nurse practitioner role is expanded monitoring will be thorough and reviews regular. There is a school of thought out there that if nurse practitioners want to do a doctor’s job then why do they not do the rigorous training and carry the same insurance costs as those who put in the years of study? With regard to amendments regarding antismoking laws and banning smoking in vehicles carrying children under 16, I note also that the minister aims to regulate smoking in outdoor pedestrian malls and at public transport waiting points. There is no doubt that smoking and smoking related illnesses cost Australia dearly in lives, in quality of health and, of course, in monetary terms—massive monetary terms, to both the smoker and the health system. Whilst the intent of this bill is certainly noble, one has to wonder how it is going to be implemented. The issuing of infringement notices sounds all well and good and, unquestionably, it will be a popular amendment. As is the case with mobile phone users, it will be extremely hard to patrol, let alone enforce. I am flabbergasted at how many drivers are still using a mobile phone while driving, even though it has been banned for quite some time. Obviously few people get caught. A recent RACQ survey found that talking or texting on phones while driving a vehicle had overtaken tailgating as the most annoying complaint. If the government is serious about its smoking bans, why does it not ban smoking in cars as it poses just as much of a distraction, if not more, as holding a mobile phone? As I mentioned before, the main defect with the provision is the ability to implement it. With our police resources stretched to a thin blue line, how on earth does the minister think his government will be able to monitor this law? In summary, the LNP agrees that maximising patient safety is paramount, but we must also make sure that any legislation does not inadvertently undermine patient care or inappropriately burden the health system. Also of importance is that legislation does not create a punitive atmosphere that fosters a culture of fear and blame, as is already too common in Labor government top-heavy bureaucracies. Impaired colleagues deserve some assurances that they will receive even-handed treatment when seeking support to become fully functioning again so they can continue to work, if appropriate and if they so choose. This legislation needs to promote the principles of fairness which, in its current form, it fails to do as it favours one group of health professionals over another. The federal government certainly has not done its homework with the national law legislation, which contained over 120 drafting flaws. However, Labor will use its majority here in Queensland to push it through despite a number of bodies expressing not only their concerns but also their views that the legislation is unworkable and lacking in critical details. There is little doubt that patients who receive continuous, comprehensive, coordinated care benefit from a team approach. The enemy of quality care is fragmentation. Successive Labor governments have not offered much confidence in their ability to manage public health services and they have shown here again by the interjections I have heard over the last 20 minutes that they do not like it when people do not agree with them. They certainly are not putting patients first in this state. 2944 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 28 Oct 2009

Mrs SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (3.35 pm): I wish to make a brief contribution to the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. Young children in their early developmental stage are very susceptible to their environment. We know that prenatal influences are very important, and to see a tiny baby with foetal alcohol syndrome or drug withdrawal is quite heart-wrenching. What a pregnant woman takes into her body during her pregnancy is so important. Similarly, in the early years of a child’s life it is important that children have the best chance to develop physically, mentally and socially in a very holistic way. I believe it is a very basic principle that we as parents do all in our power to keep our children from harm. Given research showing the injurious effects of smoking to the smoker themselves and also to those nearby from passive smoke, it is hard to understand that any parents would smoke in the presence of young children, let alone smoke in the confines of the family car. Unfortunately, to ensure the wellbeing of our children we need to bring in penalties to have some parents take this seriously. The penalty for smoking in a vehicle with children under the age of 16 will be an on-the-spot fine of $200. It is clear that community standards are such that most people agree that this is a necessary move. There are still areas around our communities where smokers and nonsmokers mingle, and I am pleased to see in this legislation that councils will be authorised to regulate their own areas and enforce such regulations. It has long been suspected that medical practitioners are very reticent to report on each other. We have seen some very distressing examples of malpractice. This bill will make it mandatory for a medical practitioner who suspects that another doctor has acted inappropriately to report the matter in writing to the Medical Board of Queensland. This part of the legislation will, in fact, be incorporated in a national registration and accreditation scheme due to come into effect in July 2010. Lastly, I would like to register my strong support for nurse practitioners and the proposal to enable them to issue workers compensation medical certificates for minor injuries. I might say, I have a number of very qualified and very experienced nurse friends. I understand that often they are able to give doctors a great deal of information, particularly young doctors who are inexperienced. I would put my health in the hands of a very qualified and additionally trained nurse practitioner. So I am very happy to support that. They are a valuable member of the health team and they are able to spend time with patients to educate them in such matters as managing their disease, lifestyle issues and many practical medical procedures in partnership with doctors at a medical practice or hospital. I believe that the measures within this piece of legislation will promote better health. I am happy to support the bills. Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (3.39 pm): I rise to lend my support to the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. For the purposes of this legislation, I will focus on the tobacco and smoking related issue contained in the bill. It is quite clear that the Queensland government has one of the nation’s toughest antismoking laws. Our laws include smoking bans for indoor and outdoor public places, as well as tough restrictions on retail advertising, and the display and promotion of tobacco products. Those laws reduce people’s exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, with the effect of establishing an environment that is supportive to smokers trying to quit and discouraging young people from taking up that very bad habit. As the honourable Premier and Minister Robertson, when he was the minister for health, announced on 26 May 2008, this bill will ban smoking in cars carrying children under the age of 16 and grants councils the power to regulate smoking in malls and public transport waiting points such as bus stops. I take this opportunity to thank the honourable Paul Lucas, Minister for Health, for overseeing the safe passage of this very important bill through the House today. The death toll from tobacco smoking is still far too high. Each year more than 3,400 Queenslanders die unnecessarily as a result of their smoking. That is almost 10 times greater than the annual road toll. Smoking is also a burden on our healthcare system. In Queensland alone smoking related hospital admissions cost more than $217 million per year. Exposing our children to environmental tobacco smoke in cars represents a significant health risk. In Queensland there are 276,000 smokers with children under the age of 16. The Queensland Cancer Council indicates that babies and children are very susceptible to the health effects of passive smoking as their lungs and their immune systems are still developing. The children of smokers inhale approximately the same amount of nicotine as they would if they smoked 60 to 150 cigarettes a year. Exposure to tobacco smoke means that children are inhaling the same carcinogens as smokers. Such exposure to tobacco smoke causes and can lead to numerous health problems in young children such as sudden infant death syndrome or cot death, bronchitis, pneumonia and other lung and airway infections, asthma, middle ear disease, slow lung development and even childhood cancer. We cannot and must not let this continue. Therefore, the amendment of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 will enable the enforcement of the new offence of smoking in a motor vehicle with a child under the age of 16 and the amendment of the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Act 1998 will protect children and the community from the harmful effects of environmental tobacco smoke. 28 Oct 2009 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 2945

Recently I was talking to one of my volunteers about the upcoming debate. She was surprised to learn that the toxicity of smoking in cars can have a significant effect on children’s health as they grow. She remembers growing up in her grandparents’ home in country New South Wales. Both her grandparents smoked and she thought nothing of it. None of the research that we have access to was available, and there was no indication of the potential health problems that would face not only her grandparents but also herself as time went on. She does not smoke, but clearly has suffered from diseases as a result of passive smoking. At the very young age of 43, my mother died from lung cancer. She told me that she had smoked only three cigarettes in her entire life. Where did she get the cancer from? She was an opera singer. I was told that in those days it was quite common for her to perform in a smoke-filled auditorium, day in and day out. I can imagine that travelling in a smoke-filled car with locked windows to keep the airconditioning functioning is not that much different to working in a smoke-filled auditorium. Information outlying the effect of second-hand smoke on children travelling in cars has now been confirmed by studies conducted over the past 20 years. Those studies have indicated the urgent need for legislative reform so that the legislation can reflect what we know today, which is that passive smoke is a silent and lethal health killer of our children. The issue has been part of an ongoing debate over the past 20 years with media coverage showing a much greater proportion of the stakeholders involved support the ban on smoking in cars with children. Some opponents of this legislation argue that education is going to work better than legislation to change people’s attitudes and some cite privacy and the individual’s right to smoke as a counter argument to the legislation. They say that we are making a law about something that happens in the privacy of the family car, which is really a matter between the parents and the children. However, it is a fact that legislation already exists that governs the family car and relates to the use of such things as mobile phones, seatbelts and baby-carrying seats. Those rules are enforceable by police officers. In my view the threat to our children’s health is far more important than the parent’s right to smoke. This argument is supported by findings in a recent study published by the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. In that study only two per cent of the total media articles covered felt that a ban to protect children was an invasion of parental rights. We are not alone in introducing this bill. According to the overview provided by the Canadian Cancer Society, laws prohibiting smoking in vehicles carrying children have been adopted in the Canadian provinces and territories of Ontario, British Columbia and the Yukon Territory, as well as in South Africa, Puerto Rico and the Australian states of South Australia and Tasmania. We need this bill. The Queensland government will keep moving ahead with reforms so that the most vulnerable members of our community, our children, are protected and kept safe from the dangerous effects of second-hand smoke inhaled while in a car. In the interests of children, this law must be passed. Mr MOORHEAD (Waterford—ALP) (3.46 pm): I rise to make a short contribution to support this bill. Ms Spence: Hear, hear! Mr MOORHEAD: I do appreciate the support of the Leader of the House in that effort. Ms Spence: It will be an excellent contribution, I am sure. Mr MOORHEAD: Thank you. I want to refer to some of the comments made in the debate by the member for Currumbin. I am always disappointed when I hear contributions to this House that are made through the prism of partisan attacks rather than being a detailed consideration of the bill in the public interest. I think the key test is whether what is said is matched by what is done. If we look at a few of the statements made by the member for Currumbin, we will see that what she said does not match what has been done. The member criticised the Leader of the House for moving that the two bills before the House today be debated cognately. However, that motion was passed through this House without dissent yesterday. In addition, an attempt was made to launch a criticism on the basis of previous incidents where it is alleged that medical practitioners had gone through the medical registration system without detection, but then she went on to criticise and oppose mandatory reporting obligations. Despite the range of criticisms in that contribution, I understand that the LNP will be supporting the bill before the House. The member then went further and verballed the member for Caloundra by quoting his comment that these reforms are a ‘sugar-coated toxic blend’. I think that was the statement that the member for Currumbin referred to. Mr McArdle: That was November last year. Mr MOORHEAD: Yes, it was November last year. Mr McArdle: It was not today. Mr MOORHEAD: I was not suggesting that, member for Caloundra. 2946 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 28 Oct 2009

Mrs STUCKEY: I rise to a point of order. The member has misrepresented what I said in my speech. I ask him to withdraw because it is offensive and untrue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Ryan): Order! Member for Waterford, the member finds the statement offensive. Mr MOORHEAD: I am happy to withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. Despite quoting the opposition health spokesman and some criticism, whatever that may be, the LNP will be supporting this bill. My contribution will be particularly about the amendment of the Workers’ and Rehabilitation Act 2003 and the opportunity this provides to allow nurse practitioners to issue workers compensation certificates for minor injuries. I think this is a very important initiative that will reduce the administrative burden on workers and employers who have been injured due to their work and who make a WorkCover claim and seek to rehabilitate and return to work. Often workers who have been injured at work have a significant burden in terms of regularly attending doctors to monitor their ongoing fitness for work, their ongoing rehabilitation plan and how their light duties are going to work. What this amendment means is that a person with a minor injury can attend a nurse practitioner and seek a workers compensation certificate that will become the basis of a workers compensation claim. Obviously there are legal rights that flow from that, but generally the process is often done without lawyers and is often done by filling out a form or sometimes over the phone. The process that requires workers to consistently return to doctors, making more and more appointments and claiming more and more funds back from WorkCover, only burdens those workers and takes away from their rehabilitation treatment that they have been receiving and their ability to return to work on light duties. Anything that supports workers in their rehabilitation is a good measure. It is also an opportunity to improve the rehabilitation process, which is currently done with rehabilitation officers at workplaces, and to work with doctors and nurses or whoever can assist to ensure those workers are returned to work as soon as possible in a safe way. This is about breaking down demarcations that have disappeared from other industries over the last 20 years. In my former life I dealt with the sugar industry. At one stage tradespeople had a rule in that industry that unless you were a tradesperson you could not touch a spanner. There were a number of sugar mills that went on strike because a non-tradesperson picked up a spanner. That was ridiculous. Those things have changed since award restructuring in 1986 when we went through industry by industry and said, ‘What is safe, what is logical and what is not aimed at de-skilling workers?’ This change will not deskill doctors or nurses. It will mean that health practitioners can do the work that they can safely and logically do. It will give doctors a chance to focus on the work that requires their professional skill and judgement. Doctors are not required to check and monitor a cut to a finger to see whether it is getting infected or whether the person can return to work safely. It will mean that doctors can do what their professional judgement requires them to do and that nurses can do what they can do safely and logically. This is a long overdue amendment. I have spoken to the health minister about other changes that I would like to see in the medical practice, applying those same principles to the broader medical profession in terms of making sure that people are allowed to do what they can do safely and logically, providing better and more affordable health care for Queenslanders. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (3.53 pm): I rise to speak to the two cognate bills—the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Bill 2009 and the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. I support both of these bills. With regard to the rigmarole and the red tape that doctors have to go through, I will be guided by those in this House and the medical profession as a whole as to whether these bills are in fact good and of benefit to the community. Those people believe it is and therefore I will not question their judgement on that. The two bills I believe have quite a good intent. The significant amendments seek to boost public safety by ensuring that health practitioners are suitably trained and qualified to practise in a competent and ethical manner. Most Queenslanders and Australians believe that that would have been the case, should be the case and will always be the case. But history has shown us that there have been major issues—some very recently—that are still not resolved. A lot of issues are raised about hospitals and doctors. So anything that can help the medical profession be better trained and qualified so that these issues can be picked up in the process has to be well worth doing. With regard to cutting red tape, as I said, most doctors whom I have spoken to and those in this House who are in the medical profession have stated that they are quite pleased with the changes in the legislation. I think the member for Moggill outlined that really well, so I will not go into that either. I will not speak for long on this bill, but I would like to make particular comment about the time frame for the registration and accreditation scheme of 1 July 2010. It will apply to the medical, nursing, midwifery, pharmacy, physiotherapy, dentistry, psychology, optometry, osteopathy, chiropractic and podiatry professions in 2010. The addition of medical radiation practitioners, occupational therapists, Chinese medicine practitioners and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practitioners will occur in July 2012. I must admit that dental technicians and speech pathologists were not included in this. I know that it is being looked into. I am curious to know why that is, Minister. 28 Oct 2009 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 2947

Mr Lucas: We’re the only state that registers speech therapists. I could not get support at a national level for it. With dental technicians, the argument of other states has been that they will no longer practise direct to the public as dental prosthetists can. I would prefer to have them both registered nationally and I argued for that. We will have to look at alternatives locally. Mrs PRATT: I would have to support the minister in that too, but I did not get a say at that level. But I will add my support here today. Dental care is a huge issue in this state, as we all know. In Kingaroy we still have waiting lists of up to five years for treatment. So any possible help to resolve those sorts of issues would be well worth the time and effort, I can assure the House. I would like to address the anti-smoking laws and the banning of smoking in vehicles carrying children under the age of 16 and the granting of power to local councils to regulate smoking in outdoor pedestrian malls. We all know that smoking causes a huge impost on our health system—it has been quoted around $217 million per annum. That is a huge burden on our health system. I have lots of doctor friends. They often say that they feel so frustrated when they need to operate on people who are heavy smokers, knowing full well that the outcome may very well not be a positive one. They ask, ‘Why do we have to use our resources in this way when the people who are undergoing the operation do not appear to be able to help themselves by at least giving up smoking for a particular time?’ We also know the impact of smoking in bars and clubs. We have addressed that in the past. Those spaces are not nearly as enclosed as cars. With regard to that, although there was mention in the bill that police are able to issue a $200 on- the-spot fine to adults smoking in a vehicle when a child under the age of 16 is present, there was no mention of whether councils can issue the same fine to pedestrians in outdoor malls or whether councils are free to raise or lower that fine. I would like the minister to clarify that. I think a lot of people will say that this is just another revenue-raising measure by the government, but I believe, as the member for Capalaba also said, that our children’s safety and wellbeing and their future are paramount in all cases. I found it interesting that, of the 588 submissions received from the general public, 89 per cent called for a ban on smoking in cars. As all members would know, I am a great believer in asking people what they think and I poll my constituents on issues every three months. I do not think you can argue with a figure like 89 per cent; that is pretty high. I thought it would have been a bit less but I am not always right. My constituents do not necessarily agree with me on certain issues either, but at least I find out what they think. I would like clarification on the fines for local government officers and what assessment an authorised local government officer will have to undergo to become an authorised officer. The police will be imposing the fines and pulling up cars, but what regulations will those local government officers have to comply with and what training will they undertake? I would like to move to the part of the legislation that deals with the reporting of doctors by doctors—doctor against doctor, that type of thing. Most people in this room would agree that there is a belief in the community that doctors close ranks when anything goes particularly wrong. This measure may or may not remove that belief in the general public. I hope it will. I know that doctors are a bit like politicians: you could be a great doctor, but if there is one bad doctor in the midst—one bad apple—all are tainted. It is the same in this place: one bad politician taints everybody, so we should be able to relate to that. In saying that, I hope there would not be a single doctor out there who would willingly enter into any type of malpractice. I know there have been instances of drug or alcohol abuse. I had one instance in my own electorate some years back, but it was resolved pretty quickly once it was found to be a fact and steps were taken. When these things are discovered, people do act quickly. We have heard allegations in this place previously and the government has denied them and tried to hide them and said that everything was great. The truth in many instances is that things are not great. I would hope that no-one would raise issues in here just to be vexatious or narky. I know that I and other people in this House raise issues which are fact. We have witnessed the results of the actions, but the government has said, No, that wouldn’t have happened.’ Well, I can say that it did happen, so, rather than sweep it under the carpet and hope that it goes away, the government should face the problem, admit there is a problem and fix the problem. I also noted that the member for Moggill talked about impaired doctors. I can understand the alcohol and drugs aspect, but I know a wonderful surgeon who has a fairly crippled hand but he can operate on me any day of the week. He is brilliant. So to me he is not impaired. Impairment is a difficult thing. One person may say that a person is impaired; another might not. Mr Lucas: It depends what for and in what circumstances. Mrs PRATT: Exactly. That is what I am hoping—that it is not just a judgement call and that it will be evaluated in a very appropriate format. 2948 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 28 Oct 2009

The member for Moggill mentioned doctors who may be suffering from depression, anxiety, the onset of Alzheimer’s or some other condition. I would hate to think that those doctors would not seek treatment for their condition on the off-chance that they might be reported. I think doctors believe that patients are the most important part of their workplace and therefore I doubt they would fail to seek help, but I hope they would not. I encourage them to do so if they have any doubts about their own performance. I think they would be well guided by their own conscience. Members would have noticed that the majority of speakers in this House have been in support of these two bills. The bills will pass, but I also note that several concerns have been raised and I look forward to the minister addressing those concerns. Regardless of who is in power, what time of the year it is, what term the government is in or whatever happens in life, something can always be improved and I believe the minister is definitely trying to improve the health system. I think he believes that this is the best way to go and the majority of the people in this House do also. I look forward to the minister’s response to all of these issues and I support the bills. Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (4.05 pm): Today I rise in this chamber to contribute to the debate on the following cognate bills—the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 and the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Bill 2009—which propose amendments to a number of Health portfolio acts as well as the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 and the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. As a current registered general nurse—and I believe the only registered nurse on either side of parliament—and a nurse with over 29 years standing in the community, in both clinical and managerial roles, I can say that both of these bills affect nursing, which has been in the forefront of not only my working life but also the working lives of my two sisters. They are still working in this system that still to this day does not reward and listen to its front-line workers. The main objectives of the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 as stated in the explanatory notes include the following summaries of the intended changes to numerous acts, and I will respond to each amendment. There is an amendment to the Health Quality and Complaints Commission Act 2006 to implement a recommendation that allows the HQCC to allow reasonable processes to improve the quality of the health services delivered by healthcare providers. In November 2007, the select committee’s Review of the Health Quality and Complaints Commission and the Health Quality and Complaints Commission Act 2006 recommended that the HQCC undertake impact assessments in the development of standards. The Health Services Act 1991 amendment will enable a release of confidential information for the protection, safety or wellbeing of a child following a recommendation from the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian, which was that broader information should be available under certain circumstances. This has also been a response to coronial reports that suggested that had additional information been provided it may have prevented the death of a child. This amendment recommended by the Queensland Ombudsman enables information to be provided where it is relevant. Amendments to the Medical Practitioners Registration Act 2001 are designed to overcome the fact that there is no statutory obligation for a doctor to notify the Medical Board of Queensland if the doctor is aware that another doctor engages in misconduct in the practice of his or her profession. This will increase the protection of the public and enable the board to identify instances of serious misconduct. On 5 March 2009, Australian health ministers endorsed a model for mandatory reporting by health professionals for inclusion in legislation being developed as part of the implementation of the national registration and accreditation scheme for health professionals. Under this new legislation, a medical practitioner must supply a written report if they become aware of or suspect professional misconduct. Failure to do so may result in disciplinary action. I note that the AMAQ is strongly opposed to mandatory reporting. Excerpts from a press release on its website state— AMA Queensland President Dr Chris Davis said the proposal was extreme and said the Government’s immediate responsibility must be to address system failures rather than making doctors accountable for reporting inadequacies. ‘The AMA acknowledges clinicians have a role to play in maintaining patient safety through the reporting of misconduct where appropriate, but the proposal to make this requirement mandatory must be very carefully considered,’ Dr Davis said. ‘Clinicians currently undertake a range of surgical and clinical audits to monitor patient care and these should be further utilised through addressing screening and reporting problems to make this system work more effectively. ‘The Government has a responsibility to address the system flaws in the current reporting system and to get this process right— simply forcing clinicians to make subjective judgements and report these will not solve the problem,’ he said. I have concerns that the amendment to this legislation for reporting misconduct might make it extremely unlikely that a doctor in either a spousal relationship with another doctor or whereby it was reasonably believed that the reportable misconduct had previously been reported or where the registrant became aware of the reportable misconduct as a result of a protected confidence. I refer to these amendments which will be discussed in greater detail during consideration in detail and moved by my colleague the member for Caloundra. 28 Oct 2009 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 2949

Amendments proposed to the Physiotherapists Registration Act 2001 are in response to a national shortage of physiotherapists in Australia, and the development of a model for limited registration to attract suitably qualified physiotherapists from overseas is a key element to the amendment of this act. It is proposed that four new classes of special-purpose registration be created to increase the scope of recruitment in the quest to encourage suitably qualified overseas physiotherapists to practise in Queensland, which will also assist in addressing the shortage of physiotherapists in Queensland. These classes will enable overseas qualified physios to practise in Queensland under the following provisions: while they prepare for written and clinical examination, while they prepare for clinical examination, and in the speciality area where the physiotherapist has successfully completed a postgraduate speciality course in a clinical practice of physiotherapy at a Queensland university, or who is under a working holiday visa under the Commonwealth Migration Act 1958. A further significant amendment to the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Act 1998 is also annunciated and is to protect young children and babies and the community from the harmful effects of environmental tobacco smoke. The Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Act 1998 amendments include banning smoking in cars with children under 16 years present, enabling local governments to regulate smoking in outdoor pedestrian malls and at public transport waiting points, and to extend the meaning of a smoking product to include smoking related products such as cigarette rollers, tubes and filters. The Parliamentary Library brief states succinctly that environmental tobacco smoke is the complex mixture of chemicals and particles containing over 4,000 chemical compounds including 60 known cancer-causing chemicals. The death toll from tobacco smoking is still too high. More than 3,400 Queenslanders die each year as a result of their smoking. This is almost 10 times greater than the annual road toll. Smoking is also a burden on our healthcare system. Smoking related hospital admissions in Queensland cost more than $217 million per annum. Involuntary exposure of children to environmental tobacco smoke in cars represents a significant health risk for our young children. In Queensland there are 276,000 smokers with children under 16 years of age in their households. In addition, with New South Wales banning smoking in cars with children under the age of 16, it is desirable for consistency across the Tweed-Coolangatta region that Queensland has the same age limit as New South Wales. I did note in an article the other day that a woman was not fined for smoking in a car with a child but she had a charge laid against her. I am assuming that was in New South Wales and that it was a Queensland driver. There is strong community support for reducing exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in situations of involuntary crowding such as outdoor pedestrian malls and public transport waiting points such as bus stops, taxi ranks and ferry wharves. Further amendments to make it an offence to smoke in a business vehicle or any vehicle are supported by the LNP, which again the shadow minister will annunciate in the consideration in detail stage. The above amendments also give rise to the amendments mooted to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, which will enable enforcement of this offence of smoking in a motor vehicle with a child less than 16 years of age. Miscellaneous amendments also include the amendment of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 to enable nurse practitioners to issue workers compensation medical certificates for minor injuries at patients’ initial attendance and allow for the full implementation of a nurse practitioner role. Nurse practitioners will often be the first point of contact for patients with work related injuries who present at primary healthcare facilities and emergency departments for initial diagnosis and treatment. However, while nurse practitioners are able to provide the necessary health care for certain non-complex work related injuries, referral of these patients to a medical officer is often required for the sole purpose of obtaining a workers compensation medical certificate. The amendment to the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 will enable nurse practitioners to issue a workers compensation medical certificate for very minor injuries at a patient’s initial attendance. This will reduce the demands on the health workforce by better utilising medical resources to improve health service delivery, particularly in rural and remote areas. These amendments to allow nurse practitioners the ability to issue workers compensation medical certificates are justified by the development of a protocol setting requirements and to facilitate the issuing of certificates, particularly in rural and remote areas. Whilst the AMAQ opposes the expansion of nurse practitioners, I am a strong supporter of this role. To put it in context, a nurse practitioner is a registered nurse who has completed specific advanced nursing education—generally a Masters Degree or in some case a doctoral degree—and training in the diagnosis and management of common as well as a few complex medical conditions. Nurse practitioners provide a broad range of healthcare services now. Nurse practitioners treat both acute and chronic conditions through comprehensive history taking, physical exams, physical therapy, ordering tests and therapies for patients within their scope of practice. Nurse practitioners can serve as a patient’s ‘point of entry’ healthcare provider and see patients of all ages depending on their designated scope of practice. 2950 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 28 Oct 2009

The Master of Nurse Practitioner Studies program offered by the University of Queensland prepares registered nurses for advanced and expanded roles in practice areas that represent areas of need in Australian health such as chronic disease management, general practice, young people’s health, aviation nursing, and rural and remote nursing. Students graduate from this program with the potential to apply to the Queensland Nursing Council for endorsement as a nurse practitioner. Graduates will develop skills that will enable them to work in a nurse practitioner role that includes assessment and management of clients using nursing knowledge and skills, and may include but is not limited to the direct referral of patients to other healthcare professionals, prescribing medications, and ordering diagnostic investigations. Graduates’ practice will be grounded in the nursing profession’s values, knowledge, theories and practice, and provides innovative and flexible healthcare delivery that complements other health providers. The scope of practice of a nurse practitioner is determined by the context in which the nurse practitioner is authorised to practise. Graduates will develop a lifelong commitment to continuing education and an ability to contribute to the evolution of nursing knowledge. Nurses are more often than not in the front line of health, particularly in rural and remote areas. With chronic disease being one of the major health issues that we are, and will be, dealing with in the future, I believe there is a role for the expansion of current nursing practice, working in consultation with the medical profession. I now turn to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Bill 2009, which brings into line the COAG Intergovernmental Agreement for a national registration and accreditation scheme for health professions to establish a single national registration and accreditation scheme for health. The purpose of this legislation is to establish a national registration and accreditation scheme for the regulation of health practitioners and students. The principal objectives are to protect the public by ensuring that only suitably trained and qualified persons are registered; facilitating workforce mobility by reducing the administrative burden for health professionals; facilitating the provision of high-quality education of health practitioners; and facilitating access to services provided by health practitioners in accordance with the public interest. This bill covers 14 health professions including dental, nursing and midwifery, optometry, pharmacy, podiatry, physiotherapy, medical, chiropractic, psychology, osteopathy, Chinese medicine, medical radiation practice, occupational therapy, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practice. The bill is designed to establish a national registration and accreditation scheme for these 14 health professions by establishing the following bodies. The national scheme is headed by a ministerial council made up of all state, territory and federal health ministers. The ministerial council appoints members of the advisory council and the national board. The advisory council provides advice to the ministerial council on national accreditation and registration. A national board will exist for each of the 14 health professions. Two major functions of the national boards are to develop registration standards and approve accreditation standards developed by the accreditation authority. The ministerial council can issue policy directions to national boards. The national boards can create national committees and state and territory boards to exercise its functions. A national office provides support to the national board and national committees. The ministerial council or national agency can appoint an external accreditation agency. When no external agency is appointed, the national board can establish a national accreditation committee to develop these accreditation standards. The bill gives states and territories the option of using their legislation for handling complaints about health, conduct or performance. If this option is not taken up, as is the case in New South Wales, complaints are dealt with by the national boards. The Liberal National Party and most stakeholders support the concept of nationally consistent medical practitioner registration. From a nursing perspective, national registration is welcome. Many nurses have had to hold two or three state registrations to practise. When I arrived on the Gold Coast in 1998, I worked at the Tweed Hospital. Therefore, I had to hold both Queensland and New South Wales registrations. Obviously, many Queensland nurses work south of the border as the pay rates for nurses in New South Wales have always been more than their counterparts in Queensland. Like most nurses, I am pleased that each state will also have a local board as their point of contact, which is particularly important in matters of discipline. It is also noted that disciplinary procedures for nurses will be dealt with by the new QCAT. As a former director of nursing and general manager of a hospital, it is also pleasing to note that Queensland has fallen into line with New South Wales and every other state in requesting police checks on all potential employees. That this requirement will now be a national requirement would indeed be welcomed by all health employers. I note that the standards for nursing are yet to be developed. I will be monitoring with interest the agencies involved in providing input to the standards. Particular input should be sought from the Queensland Nursing Council, the Royal College of Nursing and the Council of Deans of Nursing and Midwifery for Australia and New Zealand. I hope that, in their considerations, those responsible for the standards of nursing practice also take into account other subspecialties in nursing which deserve recognition, particularly stomal therapists, wound management nurses and breast cancer support nurses. 28 Oct 2009 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 2951

Having been involved in many hospital accreditation processes, I look forward to nurses being able to write policies for nurses who understand those issues that affect them at the coalface. It is also interesting to note that nurses, as part of their registration process, will require indemnity insurance. That insurance has previously been provided by either the unions or the college of nursing. This change will enable nurses to decide if they wish to join a union for purposes other than for reasons of indemnity insurance, as this will be part and parcel of their registration. I note that on the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Council website it, too, has similar concerns to those of the Liberal National Party. The ANMC continues to support a national regulatory scheme for nursing and midwifery based on the scheme maintaining the highest standards of nursing and midwifery care to the Australian community. The ANMC has significant concerns about the independence of the accreditation processes outlined in the draft legislation, particularly the powers of the Australian Health Workforce Ministerial Council with regard to the accreditation standards of the professions and the consequent negative impacts of this on the professional standards. The ANMC is committed to taking the time necessary to ensure that the scheme that is developed is implemented carefully, thoughtfully and with transparency. In 2008, the Liberal National Party expressed concerns that the new national agency, which is to be established by law, will have the powers, privileges and immunities of the state and vest control and power over health profession standards in a political institution. The ministerial council is accountable to no-one and, despite members of the ministerial council having no relevant expertise, has the power to give directions to a national board of directors as to policies to be applied. These concerns remain. Given that much of these two bills make sense and provide input to health professions in determining their own standards, I commend the bills to the House. Mr POWELL (Glass House—LNP) (4.22 pm): I rise to contribute to this cognate debate on the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Bill and the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Bill. I will address the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Bill first and focus on four main issues: smoking, mandatory reporting, confidentiality disclosure and changes in the role of nurse practitioners. I would like to commend the government for continuing its tough stance on smoking. The implementation of the clauses in the bill might be a bit clunky, confused and definitely difficult to police, but the intent is positive. Smoking is an insidious addiction and the effects of smoking are dreadful. It is now a long-established fact that smoking is a primary contributor to the development of a range of cancers, including lung cancer. Those who never smoke have a one in 200 chance of getting lung cancer as opposed to a one in 10 to one in 20 chance for those who smoke. New South Wales health reports also demonstrate that smoking doubles the risk of heart disease, heart attack and strokes. Quite simply, smoking is a killer. As the explanatory notes highlight, some 3,400 Queenslanders die each year as a result of their smoking. I am particularly passionate about this issue because, like most families in Queensland, mine has suffered from the consequences of smoking related death. Both of my maternal grandparents died of smoking related disease: my grandfather from throat cancer, my grandmother from respiratory difficulties. As tragic and distressing as their deaths were for me, as an impressionable teenager it was the best form of deterrence. I can still vividly picture the dramatic decline of my once fit and fun-loving grandfather. My last image of him was as a wheelchair-confined invalid, bloated and grey from constant treatment, unable to speak other than through the expressiveness of his eyes. If I needed a reason to avoid ever touching cigarettes, I had it. But smoking has other, more broad community consequences. It is an excessive burden on the healthcare system. As the explanatory notes state, smoking related hospital admissions cost the state $217 million per annum. We continue to see 276,000 smokers with children under the age of 16 in Queensland, which raises the spectre of environmental tobacco smoke, or passive smoking as it is more commonly referred to. Passive smoke contains 250 toxic chemicals and increases the risk of bronchitis, pneumonia, asthma, ear infections, lung cancer, heart disease and SIDS. The Addictive Behaviours 2008 survey also demonstrated the link between passive second-hand smoke exposure in cars and nicotine-dependence symptoms. Therefore, the proposal to prohibit smoking in a motor vehicle where there is a child under the age of 16 is a great idea. But, as I said, how it is implemented appears to be a bit cumbersome and confusing. In addition to reducing the effects of passive smoking in cars, I also support the push to limit smoking in all public spaces. This bill brings Queensland into parity with other states, such as Tasmania, which brought in similar legislation in 2007, and New South Wales, which brought in similar legislation earlier this year. This push to limit smoking in all public spaces is also consistent with broad community approval, with—as other members have noted—89 per cent of Queenslanders being in support of tougher smoking laws. Overall, the ban on smoking in cars with children under the age of 16 will help protect the community and, in particular, the immediate and future health of young children and babies. I turn now to the amendments that relate to mandatory reporting. I agree that it is good policy to protect Queensland patients from professional misconduct. I also realise that it is necessary to strengthen the community’s confidence in health services. No-one in this House, nor in Queensland as a whole, needs to be reminded of the consequences of misconduct in the health profession. 2952 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 28 Oct 2009

According to the explanatory notes, the amendment to the Medical Practitioners Registration Act 2001 will make it obligatory for a doctor to notify the Medical Board of Queensland if the doctor is aware that another doctor has engaged in misconduct in the practice of the profession. I understand that a doctor’s report of another doctor’s misconduct will make it easier for the Medical Board to intervene and take appropriate action, thereby protecting the public. Although the intent is positive, there are concerns about this amendment. For example, the Medical Indemnity Industry Association of Australia—or the MIIAA—is opposed to mandatory reporting. It believes that the legislation will have a negative impact on health professionals as it will limit disclosure of issues and create a punitive atmosphere and culture of fear; that health professionals will no longer be willing to openly discuss medical errors; that the amendments have the potential to prevent an open, trusting and learning environment—an environment that benefits patients—and that the legislation will not enhance the Medical Board’s ability to identify serious misconduct. Interestingly, mandatory reporting has been instituted in New South Wales. However, in introducing it, the New South Wales health minister reported that it was— ... based on public perceptions not any evidence that it would improve medical standards. In fact, the New South Wales Medical Board advises that the level of reporting by practitioners since that time—2005—has not altered significantly at all. The AMAQ also expresses some reservation about certain models of mandatory reporting, calling it ‘more harm than good’. Although the Medical Board is not opposed to the amendments, it is concerned that the amendments may deter impaired doctors from seeking help from their treating doctor for fear of being reported. In view of the position of these three respected health entities alone, I suggest that we rethink the amendments and consider the extreme effects of mandatory reporting, including the potential for counterproductivity. Overall, although it is good to improve patient protection and care, it should not come at a cost of creating an unstable environment for patient caregivers. If medical professionals do not feel safe to discuss medical issues, they will not give proper care. I agree with the LNP’s suggestion that if mandatory reporting is adopted, it should not include issues related to clinical care. Rather, it should be limited to practising while intoxicated through drugs or alcohol or to sexual misconduct. On the matter of confidentiality disclosure, I agree with the intent of this legislation to enable the release of confidential information for the protection, safety and wellbeing of the child. While I recognise that patient privacy is important, I agree with the government that a provision should be made for those willing and able to support a child in circumstances where a child may be placed at some risk. My previous experience in the Department of Child Safety has certainly led me to agree with the government that anything that we can do to make it easier to share information that will protect a child is certainly worth doing. I would like now to address the proposed amendment recognising the role of the nurse practitioner. As stated in the minister’s second reading speech, nurse practitioners will often be the first point of contact for patients with work related injuries who present at primary healthcare facilities and emergency departments for initial diagnosis and treatment. However, while nurse practitioners are able to provide the necessary health care for certain non-complex, work related injuries, referral of these patients to a medical officer is often required for the sole purpose of attaining a workers compensation medical certificate. I fully support the initiative to be more efficient, especially in busy healthcare facilities and emergency departments. Therefore, if those stakeholders consulted deem it efficient for nurse practitioners to issue a workers compensation medical certificate for minor injuries at a patient’s initial attendance then I add my support to this amendment. Mr Lucas: The member for Currumbin obviously wasn’t listening to you. Mr POWELL: I take the Deputy Premier’s interjection. The difference between this side of the House and that side of the House is that we can actually have differences of opinion. I would, however, like to see this kind of recognition extended to other nursing specialisations and even allied health, although I know my views are not supported by some in the medical community. In particular I would like to see better support and resourcing for midwives. Midwives are highly qualified and often their skills are not fully utilised. I realise many women require the specialist care of an obstetrician, but even more do not. I would love to see a proliferation of one-on-one midwife based birthing centres in all rural and regional hospitals throughout the state. Imagine the efficiencies and cost savings such a move would deliver, let alone the care and personal outcomes for the new mothers? On a separate matter, my wife is a trained physiotherapist and she often expressed frustration in the medical system, particularly when she was working in the hospital system in the ACT, that many of the things that she was trained to do she was unable to do because it required a doctor to perform that duty. It would be good if over the coming years—preferably months—we can look at freeing up some of those other allied health professionals who have the ability to do some of those duties. I realise that doctors and some of the medical professions may not necessarily support that approach, but in the interests of getting greater efficiencies and better care in our hospitals I think it is worth looking at. 28 Oct 2009 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 2953

If I can now turn to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Bill, I would briefly like to focus on one omission. From the outset I acknowledge that the Deputy Premier has also identified the problem and has addressed it in part in his second reading speech. I also note his comments recently to the member for Nanango. I must admit that I am rather incredulous that we are the only state that registers speech pathologists. That comes as a surprise. The sooner we nationalise it and bring in some consistency across the states and territories, the better. Having acknowledged that the Deputy Premier is aware of this issue I will spend a moment reading a letter that I received, as probably no doubt others did around the state, from a speech pathologist in my electorate by the name of Karen Malcolm who writes— I wish to draw to your attention a matter of grave concern to me, which also has major implications for the whole community. It is with great disappointment that I have learned through my professional body, Speech Pathology Australia, that the Speech Pathology profession will still not be included in the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme, despite there being a revised decision through AHWMC (of 27 August) to include a further profession, Occupational Therapy, as of July 2012. Mr Lucas: We got one out of three. Mr POWELL: We have got one out of three. We have a bit of work to do. She continues— Speech pathologists practising in Queensland currently require registration and it is the profession’s collective view that this should be applied nationally. Given the criteria of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for regulating health professions, it is our profession’s persistent strong view that speech pathology meets these criteria and in not regulating the profession nationally there will be no consistent protection of the public against possible risks inherent in a range of speech pathology practices and a lack of assurance of quality and safe care. Ms Malcolm goes on to state— Speech pathology will stand out as a clear omission from what is generally recognised as the core group of allied health professions. ‘Physio, OT and Speech’ is the key allied health team who contribute to health outcomes of patients across acute hospital, sub-acute, rehabilitation and community health settings. I mentioned before that my wife is physiotherapist. We found it relatively easy, as we moved back from the ACT to Queensland, to transfer over her registration. Obviously this bill will make it a bit easier. But as I said at the start, I cannot see why we cannot be doing the same for ‘speechies’. Ms Malcolm continues— Not including speech pathology in the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme will lead to an inconsistent and disproportionate system of governance and regulation of the health professions. Ms Malcolm concludes— I trust that you will raise this issue in parliament and directly with the health minister. Yours sincerely, Karen Malcolm Mr Lucas: Well, we agree with her. Mr POWELL: I am glad to hear that, Deputy Premier, and look forward to it being addressed as soon as possible to bring the rest of the states and territories in line. Finally, it would be remiss of me in a debate on health legislation to not make some comment on what is clearly the biggest disappointment for Sunshine Coast residents. As members are well aware, a university hospital was scheduled to be built on the Sunshine Coast by 2014. According to Dr Wayne Herdy, Vice President of the Local Medical Association, when a new Sunshine Coast public hospital was promised five years ago; the planning figures then showed we needed another 650 beds on the coast. Despite this desperate need, the government has decided to postpone the building project for another two years, to 2016. While I respect the financial undertaking for this hospital project, I point out that the delay reflects poorly on the Bligh government’s 2020 vision of making Queenslanders the healthiest Australians. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the number of public acute hospital beds on the Sunshine Coast is about half the Australian average and half the Queensland average. To even meet the national average, and to again quote Dr Herdy, we need an additional 330 beds today. That does not even count the influx of tourists who access health services on the coast throughout the year, particularly during peak holiday periods. If we focus for a moment on the emergency departments of Sunshine Coast hospitals, over the five-year period of 2004 to 2009, the average wait time in the emergency departments increased from five hours to 7½ hours, a 50 per cent increase. From 2008 to 2009 the outpatient consultation increased by 12 per cent. Quite simply, the existing Sunshine Coast hospitals have already maxed-out in terms of emergency department throughput and bed occupancy. Due to this increase in hospital demand, by 2016 it is projected that Sunshine Coast and Wide Bay residents will occupy the equivalent of 127 overnight beds at the Royal Brisbane and Womens Hospital, 71 beds at Prince Charles Hospital, 38 at Princess Alexandra Hospital and 70 beds outside the district. All of this will create additional problems for hospitals throughout South-East Queensland, particularly overcrowding, where a patient must wait for more than eight hours to receive a service. 2954 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 28 Oct 2009

Studies show that overcrowding is not only inefficient, but also directly linked with mortality. One study in Canberra, reported in the Medical Journal of Australia, suggests 43 per cent more deaths in an overcrowded cohort of emergency patients compared with a non-overcrowded cohort. Patients are also likely to receive a lower quality of care because the available resources are stretched too thin. Another study done by the AMA in Perth showed that patients admitted to an overcrowded emergency department had a 30 per cent increase in mortality by day two. Professor Sprivulis, Associate Professor of Emergency Medicine, says delays and errors occur more often when systems are stressed by constraining resources. Other effects of overcrowding are that patients may leave the emergency department untreated or inpatients may be placed in the wrong ward where staff are less familiar with standard service guidelines for particular patient care or clinical cues associated with potential adverse events. To this, and all the data I have presented, I say we need more hospital beds on the Sunshine Coast, and we need them now. But there is more at risk here, because beds are just one component of a healthy, continuously improving health system. Such a system also needs a skilled workforce, improved processes and ongoing research. Professor Cameron of Monash University says that there is presently a shortage of virtually every type of skilled worker in the healthcare sector which is why a university hospital will take care of this challenge, by welcoming and introducing some of the most skilled and talented practitioners from around the globe and training future generations of health practitioners. Research into improved hospital management systems will also be crucial to resolving the health crisis on the coast and have spin-off benefits to the broader health system. Building a hospital of the proposed magnitude of the Sunshine Coast University Hospital has other significant benefits. Approximately 3,500 direct jobs and 1,750 indirect jobs will be created, which is crucial given the Sunshine Coast is one of 11 unemployment hot spots in the state. Its existence will lead to new infrastructure, including the public transport corridor. It will expand the Sunshine Coast University, increasing the prestige of local education. As stated, the Sunshine Coast will become synonymous with world-class health research and education through attracting larger pools of talented practitioners. In conclusion and to quote the editor-in-chief of the Sunshine Coast Daily, Mark Furler— The government has said it can’t afford to build the hospital, we say we can’t afford not to build it. Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (4.40 pm): I am pleased to rise to speak briefly in support of the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Bill and the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Bill in this cognate debate. I will be focusing in particular on the provisions which introduce mandatory reporting of misconduct by doctors. Unlike the contributions from the member for Glass House and the LNP, I do strongly support the mandatory reporting of misconduct by doctors because I believe there is a strong focus on patient safety. Patients have a right to expect the very best professional knowledge and experience when they visit their doctor. They would be most concerned if they knew that one of the doctor’s colleagues was aware or had reason to suspect that a particular doctor was engaging in misconduct which was of a serious nature. The amendments are being made to the Medical Practitioners Registration Act 2001 to require doctors to notify the Medical Board of Queensland if they become aware or reasonably suspect that another doctor has engaged in reportable misconduct. I will speak further about the definitions of this term. The objective of the amendment is increased protection of the public by enhancing the Medical Board’s ability to identify instances of serious misconduct by doctors. As I said earlier, it is very important that Queenslanders have absolute confidence when they visit their doctors. Sadly, there have been incidents in Queensland in recent years where medical practitioners have been aware of misconduct by their colleagues but have not reported their concerns, leading to patients suffering serious injury or death. Currently, there is no statutory obligation for a doctor to notify the Medical Board of Queensland if the doctor is aware that another doctor has engaged in misconduct in the practice of a profession. This failure to report misconduct of a fellow doctor to the board means that the board can be prevented from taking appropriate action to intervene to protect the public. The bill amends the Medical Practitioner Registration Act 2001 to require doctors to notify the Medical Board if they become aware or reasonably suspect that another doctor has engaged in reportable misconduct. The definition of ‘reportable misconduct’ is conduct relating to the practice of the profession that would reasonably be considered to be sexual misconduct or practising whilst intoxicated by a drug or alcohol. Reportable misconduct also means practice of the profession while affected by physical or mental impairment or practising in a departure from acceptable professional standards but only if the practice in either case causes, or is likely to cause, harm to a person receiving professional services from the doctor. A failure by a doctor to comply with the obligation to notify the Medical Board will be a ground for disciplinary action against the doctor under the Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999. It will be for the Medical Board to decide what disciplinary action, if any, is to be taken depending on the 28 Oct 2009 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 2955 circumstances of each case. A notice given to the Medical Board in compliance with the reporting obligation will be regarded as a complaint. Therefore, doctors who report will have the same protections from legal liability and reprisals as conferred on other persons who make complaints under the Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act. The amendments are consistent with reporting obligations for health professionals proposed under the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for Health Professionals. The NRAS is scheduled to be fully implemented on 1 July 2010 and will apply to the medical profession and nine other health professions. On 5 March 2009 Australian health ministers endorsed that a model for mandatory reporting by health professionals for inclusion in legislation be developed as part of the implementation of the national scheme. In June 2009 health ministers endorsed the release of an exposure draft of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law 2009, the second stage legislation to implement the national scheme. The exposure draft included provisions about mandatory reporting by health professionals. Mandatory reporting provisions for Queensland doctors were originally introduced into the House in November last year in a bill that lapsed when this year’s state election was called in March. This occurred prior to Australian health ministers deciding that mandatory reporting should be addressed in the national scheme. Although provisions in the current bill will only operate on an interim basis until the national scheme commences, the government decided to reintroduce the provisions in a form consistent with the national scheme for a number of reasons. Firstly, mandatory misconduct reporting is a very important measure to improve patient safety. It is appropriate, therefore, that the government takes action now to protect patients rather than waiting for the implementation of the national scheme, and this is a provision I strongly support. Secondly, the introduction of mandatory reporting at this stage for Queensland doctors will assist in the transition to the national scheme later. The amendment is welcome and reflects community and society values regarding our joint responsibility to look after each other by reporting dangerous or illegal workplace behaviour. I congratulate the Minister for Health on these two bills which strengthen patient safety. I commend the bills to the House. Mrs SMITH (Burleigh—ALP) (4.46 pm): I wish to make a short contribution in support of the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 during this cognate debate. While the bill covers many areas, I want to focus on the proposed amendments to the Health Services Act 1991. The bill amends the duty of confidentiality for Queensland Health staff. It specifically refers to the disclosure of patient information for the protection, safety and wellbeing of a child. I would like to see this applied more widely. While patient privacy is of the utmost importance, there is sometimes a need for patient information to be disclosed. In particular, confidentiality for patients with mental health issues is a double-edged sword. While I accept that consumers have a right to choose whether someone else has access to their medical information and treatment, when that same patient is too unwell to make decisions with regard to his treatment, it is imperative that medical practitioners be able to discuss the matter with a family member, carer or nominated person. Mr Lucas: I totally agree with you and we need to do even more work on that point. Mrs SMITH: Thank you, Minister. Recently, I was at a meeting where a woman outlined her frustrations at the lack of information available to her regarding her daughter, who has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. During a psychotic episode the daughter left the care of her medical practitioner and family and fled interstate. She is now hospitalised in that state but the family cannot access any information because she is an adult and has not given permission. While this bill does not address this issue, I look forward to it being considered in the future. Confidentiality between young people and the medical profession means that parents may not always know what treatment their child might be undergoing or what prescribed medication they may be on. While most parents would be aware of their child’s health needs, the current law ensures children can have medical privacy from the age of 14 years. For those young people who do not have family support, or who do not want to discuss their problems with family, headspace Gold Coast is a ‘one-stop shop’ with general health, mental health, vocational and employment services. By providing a youth friendly and accessible service, young people with mental health and drug and alcohol issues can receive services early enough to prevent chronic or acute conditions, such as drug addiction and mental illness requiring hospitalisation. The service receives invaluable support from the local state mental health service. Weekly complex needs reviews are held to discuss young people with the most challenging issues. Instead of highlighting the remarkable outcomes achieved, reports such as a recent one in the Gold Coast Bulletin cause places like headspace to have to defend their existence. If confidentiality means a young person will access the service without fear of others being informed, I support it. It is better that a teenager seeks support than hides his problems which, in some cases, can lead to youth suicide. I offer my support to Kate Swanton and her team at headspace Gold Coast. They attempt to meet the needs of a young and often vulnerable group and provide a service that is second to none. With those few words, I commend the bills to the House. 2956 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 28 Oct 2009

Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (4.49 pm): The legislation being debated today includes the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 as part of a cognate debate. As has been pointed out already, this bill proposes a number of important changes to enhance the safety of all Queenslanders, with the most significant amendments seeking to better protect our children and the wider community from the harmful effects of smoking, safeguard patients from the professional misconduct of medical practitioners with the introduction of mandatory reporting, further boost the safety and wellbeing of our children with important information provisions, and strengthen the accountability of the Health Quality and Complaints Commission in setting healthcare standards that assist it in its role of monitoring health service quality and independently reviewing complaints. In my short contribution today I want to briefly discuss the last point and, specifically, how the bill will amend the Health Quality and Complaints Commission Act 2006 by prescribing minimum consultation requirements that the HQCC will be required to follow in developing or amending standards under the act. As we all know, the independent HQCC was established in 2006 as part of the government’s $10 billion Health Action Plan, which of course was launched to improve Queensland’s health system in response to the Queensland Health Systems Review, led by Peter Forster. The HQCC plays an important role in Queensland’s dynamic and growing healthcare system by providing independent oversight and increased transparency of health services, while at the same time promoting continuous improvement in service delivery, and independently reviewing and managing consumer complaints. The HQCC Act, which came into force on 1 July 2006, required that a select committee review the operation of the HQCC and the act after their first year of operation to identify any opportunities for possible improvement. On 15 November 2007 the HQCC Select Committee, chaired by the honourable member for Southport, subsequently tabled its report, Review of the Health Quality and Complaints Commission and the Health Quality and Complaints Commission Act 2006. The committee overwhelmingly expressed a positive outlook on the performance of the HQCC. However, as would be expected, it did find that there was some room for further improvements. Some of the areas highlighted for improvement included recommending that the HQCC consult with health service providers on the existing and the new standards—which was recommendation 20— and, as a result, that the HQCC Act be amended to require the HQCC to undertake an impact assessment prior to developing any new standard, which was recommendation 36. It is gratifying to note that the government has accepted all 37 of the committee’s recommendations, either in principle or without reservation. It is particularly pleasing to note that the majority of the recommendations are currently being implemented by the HQCC. With that in mind, I am advised that significant progress has already been made in this regard. As we all know, the development and promotion of standards is a key part of the work of the HQCC, because standards provide a means to aggregate experiences from across health services which thereby allows us to develop best-practice resources based on those experiences. Further, it allows us to guide facilities in improving services by monitoring the quality of the service and thus protect and promote patient wellbeing. While health service providers were generally supportive of the role of the HQCC in developing standards, the select committee noted that providers were dissatisfied with the consultation the HQCC had undertaken in developing the current set of standards. In fact, some providers felt that the content of the standards, the time frames for implementing them, and factors around data collection and reporting did not adequately take into account the practical challenges facing services. As such, I am happy to see that the bill delivers on the select committee’s recommendations Nos 20 and 36 in amending the HQCC Act to require the HQCC, when developing or amending standards, to properly consult with affected service providers and interested members of the public through an impact assessment process. With this in mind, in future the HQCC will be required to prepare and publish an impact assessment statement assessing the costs and benefits to service providers and users of making or amending the standard as proposed. Further, in cases where the standard is likely to impose an appreciable cost on service providers, the statement must quantify and compare the costs and benefits, and finally assess whether the benefits outweigh the costs. The statement will be required to be open for consultation for a minimum of 14 days and the HQCC must not make or amend the standard for at least 30 days after first publishing the proposal. Importantly, before making or amending a standard the HQCC will also be required to take into account both the content of the impact assessment statement and the results of the consultation. I believe that this amendment strikes an appropriate balance between the independence and autonomy of the HQCC and the need to maximise the effectiveness and relevance of standards by basing those on practical experience and rigorous consultation processes. As such, I believe that the amendments and provisions in this bill will support the government’s commitment to delivering quality health and health related services to all Queenslanders. As such, I commend the bill to the House. 28 Oct 2009 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 2957

Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (4.55 pm): I rise to speak in this cognate debate, to put on the record my support for certain elements of the bill and also some concerns about the legislation that were passed on to me by a constituent. I will start with the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Bill, which is part of this cognate debate. The bill covers a significant number of amendments. I have received a submission in relation to the requirement for mandatory reporting of professional misconduct across all professions. I wish to say on behalf of the community that people outside the medical profession would like to believe that there was an obligation on people treating physicians to report when a physician has physical or mental health issues that make it inappropriate for the physician to provide medical services or to be engaged in conduct that is contrary to the values that doctors hold very dear. I think that 100 per cent of the people outside of the health professions would support mandatory reporting conditions. However, a practitioner in my electorate has contacted me. She requested a meeting but time did not allow that, so I asked her to put in writing her concerns in relation to the national legislation. I would like to bring to the parliament part of the concerns that she has outlined. She states— The National Registration and Accreditation scheme has a number of elements, to be established firstly in Queensland, as proposed with Bill B. That is the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Bill 2009. The letter continues— Even though this Bill affects 4,000 psychologists practising in Qld, we believe it is to be a blueprint for other states that will raise the issues of concern for another 15,000 psychologists around Australia. General points of contention and concern • Mandatory Reporting—Unlike a lot of professions ours is one based on fostering collegial support, mentoring and professional supervision of psychology practice. We have many established ethical guidelines within the Australian Psychological Society, in regards to guiding colleagues were we consider they are not meeting best practice or client needs in a proper manner. These guidelines are very incentivized in that we must individually uphold ethical guidelines to maintain our professional indemnity insurance. To have little regard for the ethics of our practice can void this professional cover. By placing us in the position of mandatory reporting of colleagues, who may also be students, clients, and supervisees, we will breach our own ethical guidelines of how we assist, teach, treat or supervise those colleagues. We believe it will change our professional culture where obligatory reporting will damage the current fostering of mutual trust, and support within the profession and place us at odds for other ethical obligations • Notification and complaints—It is acceptable that the public is able to make reasonable complaints about their therapeutic care from psychologists, as it is recognized that the client can be in a vulnerable state and duty of care principal is critical. Where it becomes problematic is whether a reasonable system and reporting is proposed for complaining about psychologists who are providing non-health services, such as personnel selection recommendations, workplace restructuring, bullying and discrimination investigations, or leadership coaching. Will the Queensland Health Quality Complaints Commission be in a position to hear such a complaint about workplace issues and organisational consultancy? There is some talk of ‘spent convictions’ to nullify old complaints for experienced psychologists but this right will not be shared by students or new applicants. The complaint scope at this time is extremely broad where there is no consequence or deterrence for vexatious complaints. Psychologists do not appear to have recourse to take action against serial vexatious complainants. • Accreditation—It is not world best practice to allow political intervention to influence course accreditation processes. The World Health Organisation/World Federation of Medical Education Guidelines for Accreditation of Basic Medical Education states: “The legal framework must secure the legal autonomy of their accreditation system and ensure the independence of its quality assessment from government.” As a psychologist, I object to having course standards driven by a political agenda. • Limiting the diversity of our practice—This sweeping legislative reform overlooks a unique aspect offered by Australian psychology profession. We are extremely diverse, and rich in our application of psychology, which is not justly represented or accurately depicted by categorizing us with one stream: Health psychology. In applied fields we can practice the following areas of psychology: organisational; work, vocational; personnel/human resources; educational; social; psychological assessment and evaluation; human factors and ergonomics; sport; forensic; environmental; community; behavioural economics; political; cross-cultural; traffic and transportation; applied cognitive; media and consumer; religious; and indigenous. From this “one size fits all” categorization for psychologists our profession’s overarching value is demolished. • Poor representation and homogeneity of Psychology Board of Australia (PBA)—Despite having many sub- disciplines of psychology across practitioner, academic and research fields we fear the lack of representation offered by the proposed PBA. Of the eight practitioners forming part of the new Psychology Board of Australia, only one is from the “non-health” sector. This one member has a career background in policy and research in a military establishment, which does not in itself cover the diversity of interests and exposure to an array of applied fields to adequately represent our needs. The remaining four members of the PBA have a strong “health” focus. The imbalance of power within the PBA, without much external accountabilities ensured, will threaten to change the direction of psychology in Australia to a singular focus to the detriment of our profession. Many of my colleagues are disturbed by this development and the attempt to narrow our profession. • Registers and Specialist titles—The Bill at this time only allows for one protected title “psychologist”. This is in spite of the fact that the Australian Psychological Society recognizes nine separate areas of speciality and focus. The UK equivalency recognizes seven specialist areas. There are some new areas emerging such as environmental psychology and behavioural economics with their roots in the specialist field of organisational psychology. Logic and professionalism dictate that the Ministerial Council accept more than three or four specialist titles, as has been mooted by some in the NRAS development. On the international stage we will be derided. Globally the Association of Applied Psychology has members from 80 countries with 17 divisions of speciality recognized. The American Psychological Association with over 150, 000 members has a stated based licensing system with 56 divisions. 2958 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 28 Oct 2009

• Compulsory Professional Development—With the PBA making decisions on continuing professional development and standards, I am mortified that I may be obliged to pursue knowledge and learning in areas unrelated to my current fields of practice. As an organisational psychologist I am currently acknowledged for attending workshops such as: New workforce trends during the GFC Understanding implications of industrial relation changes Performance management systems Accreditation for using the Safety Awareness tool in selection Given the singular health focus of the PBA, will these courses fail to meet accreditation needs? NSW have a current rule that results in non-health probationary psychologists to undertake one year of placement in a health setting. Could this improper standard be imposed nationally, because of the imbalance of power in the PBA and their powers to enforce Compulsory Professional Development in areas of their choosing? • Other difficulties with PBA formation—Our current understanding of those selected to be within the PBA is certainly not by a democratic process but a selection of one practitioner from 8 jurisdictions, but not representative of our profession or disciplines. • Lack of Recognition of Organisational Psychologists—The Senate Enquiry report (2009) page 43 noted that “adequate recognition of organisational psychologists” was an issue. One of the witnesses representing the Australian Psychological Society, stated that health services only represented on aspect of professional psychological practice. • Competitive Disadvantage for Organisational Psychologists—In the last five years it has been a hard earnt privilege amongst organisational psychologists, where we won the right to present ourselves competitively in the marketplace, to position ourselves against management consultants, trainers and other business operators with tasteful endorsement messages and testimonials from clients who were happy to vouch for the rigour, outcomes and value of using our business services. By once again limiting our use of advertising and testimonials to meet the standard set by health sector psychologists we will be stifled and gagged in the corporate arena, where organisational psychologists seek to compete with other consultancies. This is an unheard constraint in engineering, accounting, scientific and management consultancies. We find this unreasonably restrictive and anti-competitive in our discipline. I find it personally demoralizing after finding the smallest traction or merely just achieving a level playing field in the local marketplace that I will once again lose the opportunity to compete equally and publicly with trainers and larger consultancies. • Oversimplification of psychology profession to match Health or Medical Model—The focus on psychology services as purely a health service has been accentuated by the introduction of medicare rebates for clients. This national wide focus on clinical services has altered university funding and student interest for non-health related psychology courses. • Failure to recognize value organisational psychology contributes to general community—It is my claim especially in the Central Queensland region that the practice of organisational psychology is critical with such a hot bed of large industrial sites with sometimes very limited understanding of their precious resource: their people. Apart from having a strong commitment to helping organisations make better use of their personnel, I try to enlighten companies about valuing and investing in their people, not just have slick safety systems, and state of the art computers. The areas where I regularly add value in my specialist role is adding value within the workplace community. I try to share my breadth of knowledge in workplace matters, help companies improve community communications, to improve objectivity and decision making systems, anti-bullying processes, discrimination investigations, leadership skilling, coaching, impartiality, developing critical thinking in others, building work systems to complement people, treating people with greater care and ethics in the workplace, overcoming prejudice, subjectivity and poor work practices, selecting the best people for the job at hand, critiquing how work systems impact on people, and sharing more constructive methods of working with people. This is the domain of an organisational psychologist that cannot be covered by health psychology. ... I know that some of the NRAS was intended to have the spirit of protecting the public more from rogue health operators and smartening up our health sector. Regrettably, I think they will lose more than they will gain from some of the measures in the current Bill and the good intentions will be lost for many psychologists. I will especially be affected by the changes within my speciality. I do not want to see the unique services I currently offer to this region become more restrictive, obsolete, constrained or narrowed. I appeal to your sense of justice when considering the above issues. That is the end of the submission. The Health and Other Legislation Amendment Bill also deals with a number of matters, some of which are reasonably sensitive. I note that other speakers have talked about the restriction on smoking in cars where children under the age of 16 are present. I welcome that, but I know that most smokers are going to feel yet again that they have been put upon. They already feel that they are an outcast group of people. However, it is an environment where children, who are minors, have no choice but to be present when their parents or their parents’ friends are transporting them around. In modern cars, the car is a closed environment 80 per cent of the time, if not 90 per cent of the time. I have never understood how anyone could get into a nice car and make it smell like the back end of a garbage dump with stale cigarette smoke. I think the restriction will be a long-term benefit to these young people who are being exposed to smoke if they live in a smoking household. This will enable them to travel in a vehicle with clearer lungs. I have already spoken about the protection of patients from the professional misconduct of medical practitioners with the introduction of mandatory reporting. Again, whilst I acknowledge the submission from the consulting psychologist in my electorate—and I certainly support her concerns being considered—I think the population who are recipients of medical services will be very pleased that any actions that are inappropriate or not conducive to the best medical services available will be reported. 28 Oct 2009 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 2959

The bill also brings forward amendments to empower local governments to make new local laws to ban smoking. The minister’s second reading speech stated that each local government is best placed to determine in which areas bans should apply. This occurred with the drinking of alcohol, too. That is, local laws declared some areas to be areas where members of the public could congregate and have a drink while other areas were effectively declared dry. Local councils will be able to determine these local areas. They will also be responsible for the enforcement of the laws. If the government is consistent with previous actions—whether it is a Labor government or a conservative government—the obligation will be passed on to councils without any funding. My question to the minister is: when councils develop these local laws and apply fines for breaching those local laws, will the council retain the fine money? Mr Lucas: They do; it is in the clause. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: Thank you very much. The other issue I wanted to commend the minister for is the disclosure of information about a patient to people who are willing and able to provide support to a child in circumstances where a child may be placed at risk. The member for Burleigh commented on these matters, too. It is exceedingly frustrating—and that word is really not strong enough—when people love and support a family member, particularly a child, and they can see that the person is in difficulty and unwell but they cannot be part of providing a solution and informed support to that person. I commend the minister for recognising that very real circumstance. I thank the minister for the fact that he has indicated he will visit Gladstone and meet with some Gladstone people in relation to the hospital. I think the minister would be surprised if I did not raise health services in a debate on a health bill. There continues to be a great concern in my electorate that there is a perceived diminution in health services at the Gladstone Base Hospital at a time when our community is growing significantly. The minister’s office has been very helpful in the inquiries that I have made, and I thank the minister for that. The question that has been put to me is: when vacancies occur for, say, a surgeon or other specialist area, with the new hub-and-spoke model and a possible downgrading of services to be offered out of the Gladstone Hospital, isn’t it true that the probability of getting appropriately and well- qualified doctors or specialists to apply to fill a more restricted service provision will also deteriorate? The population in the Gladstone region is projected to be 100,000 in the next 10 years or so, so we need services that will grow so that we do not just become a conduit for patients to travel through accident and emergency and then go up to Rockhampton or down to Brisbane. We need to establish a full range of services in the community. Mr Lucas: I am quite happy to discuss that with you but not here. It is not the purpose of the bills. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I understand that. I have said that I have appreciated your support and that your attitude is very positive, but it is important to put those concerns of my community before the parliament because they are ongoing concerns, they have not been addressed over time and they continue to grow. As for these bills, I place the concerns of the psychologist before this parliament and also commend the minister for those changes that I commented on. Mr BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (5.14 pm): I rise this afternoon— Mr Kilburn: Be nice. Mr BLEIJIE: I will be nice. I will go easy on the Deputy Premier today. I rise this afternoon to add my contribution to the cognate debate on the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 and the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Bill 2009. I am supporting the bill introduced by the government but will add that there are certain aspects of this bill that need amending, particularly the provision for the introduction of mandatory reporting. I concur with the comments from the Australian Medical Association of Queensland that mandatory reporting of misconduct by medical practitioners into hospitals would be detrimental to the administration of the overall health system in Queensland. The former AMA Queensland President, Dr Chris Davis, stated that the proposal was extreme and the government’s responsibility must be to address system failures rather than making doctors accountable for reporting inadequacies. We have seen recently how Queensland Health treats the great doctors in this state. At the end of the day, the fundamental responsibility of reporting misconduct falls on the department rather than the individual doctors. It is no wonder that we are continually struggling to attract medical professionals to fill this void across the state. A press release states— ‘The AMA acknowledges clinicians have a role to play in maintaining patient safety through the reporting of misconduct where appropriate, but the proposal to make this requirement mandatory must be very carefully considered,’ Dr Davis said. ‘Clinicians currently undertake a range of surgical and clinical audits to monitor patient care and these should be further utilised through addressing screening and reporting problems to make this system work more effectively. ‘The Government has a responsibility to address the system flaws in the current reporting system and to get this process right— simply forcing clinicians to make subjective judgements and report these will not solve the problem,’ he said. These statements were made in August 2008. Sadly, over one year later, we see the same scant disregard for doctors shown by this government. 2960 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 28 Oct 2009

The culture of promoting the wellbeing of our doctors and medical professionals in the health system should be balanced with an underlying determination to provide medical treatment of the highest quality. Rather than having a health system that works, we once again see a government that is chasing the tough media headline. That seems to be in this government’s DNA: always on the back foot, no legislative foresight or vision at all. This legislation in its current— Mr Shine interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: I will take the interjection asking about our visionary foresight. It is not up to the opposition to fix the problems of the government of the day. I think governments have to take responsibility for the actions they take that affect the livelihood of Queenslanders. If they cannot take the responsibility and if they cannot stand the heat, they should get out of the kitchen. This legislation in its current form would require a medical practitioner to supply a written report if they became aware of or suspected any misconduct. Failure to do so could make them eligible for disciplinary action. The mandatory reporting of misconduct component of the legislation will prevent the creation of an open and trusting working environment for health professionals. An environment which fosters harmonious work practices would obviously benefit the patients and allow the medical professionals to focus their attention solely on the medical case, rather than who is watching them behind their backs. Certainly, misconduct should not be tolerated, but promoting a work culture that requires mandatory reporting is too black and white and takes away the state’s trust in the medical professionals employed in the health system. This legislation could create a situation where practitioners will be discouraged from either disclosing incidents and seeking assistance from colleagues or treating other doctors. Any such situation would obviously be detrimental to the overall health system. Since the inception of mandatory reporting in New South Wales by Labor in October 2008, the industry has generally condemned a number of cases where practitioners have raised concerns about discussing matters with other medical professionals due to a fear of being expelled. This has led to the overall deterioration in many professionals’ health and wellbeing. The LNP fears that imposing mandatory conduct on health professionals will create a retaliatory environment and a culture of fear among other health professionals. The obvious example which I believe has been raised focuses on a suicide letter in December 2008 where a doctor felt unable to seek medical help or to raise his problem with other medical staff given the compelling nature to report certain instances under the mandatory reporting requirements. This situation obviously needs to be addressed. When is the government going to question the legislative program in New South Wales rather than simply following its path? Given the legislative history we have seen in the past five months, we have certainly become a ‘yes’ state, where all we seem to do is sneak a peak at our neighbouring states and seemingly copy their legislative agenda. In school it is called cheating. In the state government it is called ignorance. The fact that we seem to follow the New South Wales government on legislative reform is even more embarrassing, because the New South Wales government set such a good example for governments in Australia! The fact that we copy New South Wales on most legislative principles is embarrassing. Some good news which has my support is the government’s decision to legislate against anyone who smokes in a vehicle with a child under the age of 16. Before I discuss this point further, I would like to congratulate Renee Gastaldon for the comprehensive research brief done on banning smoking in cars carrying children, tabled in May 2009. This legislative amendment follows the release of a Queensland government discussion paper titled ‘2007 Review of Smoke-Free Laws’. The key points raised were— The prevalence of people who smoke is reducing and in particular the number of smokers who smoke in cars. A majority ... of car owners surveyed in 2005 reported that smoking does not occur in their cars. Of smokers, only 31% with children below 14 years reported that they still smoked in their cars. This represents less than 6% of the whole adult population in Queensland. The government could have been easily content with those figures and the fact that smokers who smoke in their cars with children under 14 was reducing, but I welcome the continued legislative reform discouraging smoking in public places. The fact that six per cent of the adult population in Queensland still admit to smoking in their cars with children under the age of 14 is still a damning indication of the lack of regard some parents have for their children’s health. As a father of two daughters and one child on the way, nothing frustrates me more than seeing, as my wife and I have on many occasions on the Sunshine Coast, as we drive past or pull up at traffic lights, mothers, fathers, or friends or family or guests in the car with the windows wound up and having one or two cigarettes with more than one person in the car. It represents a total lack of respect for the children, and it also shows a lack of respect for the health issues that we all should know about, particularly what smoking causes. Cancer Council Queensland obviously welcomed the introduction of the laws, and I agree with the council when it said that it would eventually like to see the age of the child lifted to 18 rather than 16 for the purposes of the antismoking legislation. This would further reinforce the government’s commitment to the health of all children in the care of parents who have a smoking habit. The health and wellbeing of our future generations should always be the primary focus of our health professionals and the Legislative Assembly, particularly when exposure to harmful and deadly substances passively 28 Oct 2009 Health & Other Leg. A’ment Bill; Health Practitioner Reg. National Law Bill 2961 inhaled is an involuntary circumstance for the children. If the parents are not going to take responsibility for the general health and wellbeing of their child, then it is the responsibility of this parliament to enact that legislation. This part of the bill will hopefully discourage any impressionable teens from taking up the habit of smoking in the future and exposure to any future risks to their health and wellbeing by smoking. I will also add at this point in time that legislation with the same intent was passed in New South Wales in November 2008. With respect to the opposition amendments to the legislation proposed by the shadow minister for health, the member for Caloundra refers to clause 61 of the bill. The objective of the amendment is to ensure that registrants are exempt from the requirement to give notice about reportable misconduct in three particular circumstances. Requiring a registrant to give notice about reportable misconduct is considered undesirable when the first registrant is a spouse of the second registrant; the first registrant knows or reasonably believes that the reportable misconduct has previously been reported; and, finally, that the first registrant becomes aware of the reportable misconduct as a result of the protection of confidence. These exemptions make provision to protect the spouses we have working together in the medical profession by potentially forcing one against the other. Again I say I generally support the bill in commending it to the House with the abovementioned amendments proposed by the member for Caloundra. While we on this side of the House acknowledge that this bill does have some good intentions and initiatives, there are certain aspects which are too draconian and other parts which barely scratch the surface in terms of intent of the clauses. The second part of this cognate debate addresses the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Bill 2009. The bill covers a national registration and accreditation scheme for the regulation of health professionals and students which ensures that only suitably qualified and trained persons are registered; the administrative burden for health professionals is reduced, which means more time for patient care; a high standard of educational study conducted by registrants, which ultimately leads to a consistent high standard of health provision across the nation; and better access to services provided by health practitioners in accordance with public interest. This ultimately ensures that, wherever you are in Australia, you should be able to achieve the same level of quality of health care. The LNP supports the concept of nationally consistent medical practitioner registration, as do all of the key national stakeholders. In the past we have expressed some concern in this place over the issue of a national register. However, we do support the bill in its current format, thanks largely to negotiations by the AMA and other key stakeholders. The role of the ministerial council is still under question and we will be keen observers in the transparency of this body when the scheme is eventually rolled out. This may not happen for some time, as all other states and territories have to also pass the same legislation through each individual parliament. It is refreshing to note that Queensland, for once, is leading the charge for this national register. Ms Stone: Once? Mr BLEIJIE: Just once. Mr Kilburn interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: It is not usual for Queensland to lead the charge, I put that to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following the precedent set and the tradition of others in this debate, I could not possibly speak on this issue without speaking about the delay in the construction of the Sunshine Coast University Hospital announced by the government some time ago. Whilst a national register should ultimately improve the standard of health care across the nation, at a local level the situation on the Sunshine Coast is critical. We need beds and we need them now. If the government were serious about health and ensuring quality health care to all Queenslanders, it would have bought this hospital on earlier rather than delaying it by three years. Sunshine Coast residents are simply fed up. While it is good to have national standards and consistency in terms of health provisions offered, we cannot forget the people in our own backyard, and for me they are the residents living in my electorate and the general health services that are offered on the Sunshine Coast. I do not expect any cooperation, however, from the government or the Deputy Premier considering his thuggery and goon- like comments earlier today with respect to a hardworking local community action group. In summation, I would like to personally congratulate the shadow minister, the member for Caloundra, for the work he has done in the health portfolio since August 2008 and place on record the fact that while Queensland has a health minister that does not seem interested in talking for longer than 30 seconds on the health services provided in this state, there is a shadow minister who has dogged determination to see ultimate health improvement of services offered right across the state and, in particular, the Sunshine Coast. I look forward to marching in the rally with the shadow health minister on 8 November at 9.30 in the morning at Kawana Way to fight for the Sunshine Coast University Hospital. We say to the government, it is unacceptable to delay this hospital by three years. A total of 220 people a day are travelling to Brisbane. The Sunshine Coast is filling Brisbane beds. 2962 Motion 28 Oct 2009

I look forward to the rally where the people of the Sunshine Coast, local members of parliament and children on the Sunshine Coast will have the opportunity to voice their concerns and tell the government, ‘We may be under the age of 18 years but we can have a say,’ because it is unacceptable for children and everyone to be travelling to Brisbane for specialist services which we should be able to obtain on the Sunshine Coast. Debate, on motion of Mr Bleijie, adjourned.

MOTION

A1GP Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (5.30 pm): I move— That this House notes the undertaking given to the House by the Minister for Child Safety and Sport on 15 September that he had satisfied himself the A1GP would compete in the SuperGP; and calls on the Minister to provide to Parliament, within 24 hours, all the information the Minister relied upon to make that statement. This motion will confirm public confidence in the integrity and dignity of parliament. If this Labor government chooses to use its numbers to protect the member for Mansfield, the Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Sport, it will further weaken its reputation. The motion calls on the minister to provide to the parliament all the information that the minister relied upon to make the statement he made. If the government were to reject this motion, it calls into question how much the government and the minister can be relied upon to provide information to David Williams. If the minister will not provide that information to the parliament, then that brings into question whether he will provide that information, or whether the government will provide that information, to David Williams, who is undertaking his review. Of course, the Auditor-General, who is fiercely independent, is also conducting a review. This matter goes to the heart of the doctrine of Westminster ministerial responsibility. We asked questions about this issue in the parliament on 2 September, 15 September and 17 September. At the time we asked completely responsible questions in response to information that we had received from overseas that there were question marks about the A1GP’s operations and whether it would be coming to the Gold Coast for the A1GP weekend—the Nikon SuperGP. We asked these questions in a responsible way. I refute absolutely allegations that we in any way tried to undermine the event. In response to the first question that we asked, the minister read a press release. The second question, which was asked on 15 September, was literally asking if the minister would table the due diligence report undertaken before contracting with A1GP. That was a responsible question. In response, the minister gave an undertaking that he was satisfied. He gave an undertaking that he had reviewed this particular matter and that, as the minister responsible, what he had promised would occur would occur. It is very obvious now, when the minister says that it is not his responsibility, that he is undermining the integrity and accountability of the government of Queensland. That is why we have moved this motion—so that we can get the minister to explain to this House a number of issues that have been raised about the information that he had. He gave an assurance to the House that he had made sure that he was happy that the arrangements would continue and that the A1GP would be coming. We need the minister, the member for Mansfield, to come clean and prove that his comments were not made negligently. On that day, on 15 September, and I have quoted this before, the minister’s response was— All the advice I am receiving from the partnership management committee of the Nikon SuperGP is that the event is going ahead as planned. It is well planned and it is going to be a great event. Because of the repetitive rumour mongering the opposition engages in— and I refute that it was repetitive rumour mongering, as has been proven to be the case in terms of what actually happened— I sought a briefing with the partnership committee about the actions it has undertaken to ensure the contractual obligations of the A1GP will be met for 2009. I have received the briefing and have had personal discussions with the chairman of the A1GP as late as yesterday to satisfy myself that everything that needs to be done is done to ensure this iconic event, which takes place in the electorate of the Leader of the Opposition, remains on track. That is what the minister said on 15 September—that he had received a briefing and had a meeting with the chairman of the A1GP, Terry Mackenroth, the previous day which, of course, was 14 September. But when we look at the facts of the matter, last week Terry Mackenroth said on the 7.30 Report— We dearly, dearly would’ve liked to have simply said to them, a month ago, or two months ago, ‘Look, you are not going to come, we don’t think you’re going to come, so we’re going to cancel the contract.’ The question is: had Mr Mackenroth told the member for Mansfield, the Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Sport? When did Mr Mackenroth first tell the minister his opinion? Of course, subsequently on 15 September, the minister then came into this place and said, ‘No, I had a conversation with Mr Mackenroth yesterday, 14 September, and this event is going ahead.’ Yet Mr Mackenroth, by his own words, says that as far back as August—two months before the event—he had had queries about whether these people would be coming. 28 Oct 2009 Motion 2963

We also had comments by the chairman of the V8 Supercars, Tony Cochrane, who said on Stateline— And you know after you see that much smoke— referring to the issue that these cars were locked up, a company had been liquidated and a company had been removed from the stock exchange in London because their financial statements had not been filed properly. The company had not accounted for a loan that was supposedly for the A1GP cars. There were serious financial questions that were being asked— only an idiot would come to the conclusion ‘ignore all that, it is going great guns’. Their cars have been locked up under a marshall warehouse law since the end of May. The minister needs to answer serious questions and, as this motion says, he needs to answer them within 24 hours. He needs to provide the information that he relied upon to make the statement that things were going ahead. As I have said, the A1GP cars were locked up. A1GP Operations Ltd, a UK company, had been liquidated. The likelihood of A1GP complying with its promises was removed. The vehicles had been seized by Delivered on Time pursuant to a creditor’s lien. The liquidator of the company, Tim Bramston of Griffins, did not receive a phone call from the minister, his office, or the Queensland government. There are also issues with the main company behind Tony Teixeira, the CEO and part-owner of AIGP which, as I said, had been struck off the London Stock Exchange’s Alternative Investment Market because it did not file its 2008 financial statements. The statements were late because the auditors of the company refused to sign off on the statements because of an outstanding loan to A1GP. The heart of this issue is the fact that even though Tony Teixeira may have given the government and the promoters false and misleading promises, it does not excuse the government because it was not reasonable to rely on those statements. The government did not make any effort to test those statements. That is why the minister needs to give this information. I refer to the A1GP time lines that I have talked about before. There were announcements of an in-principle deal by the former minister for sport, the now member for Sunnybank—the member for Mount Gravatt then. That was in November 2008. But a number of events had been cancelled. The New Zealand event had gone ahead because the New Zealand principal had paid the freight cost to New Zealand. But the Indonesian event had been cancelled and the Mexican event had been cancelled in April. A wind-up of A1GP operations was commenced on 12 May. Yet the minister said in this place on 15 September that he was confident that this event was going to go ahead. Subsequently, the A1GP was wound up by the UK High Court. We asked the first question about this matter on 2 September. As I have already mentioned, the second and third questions were asked on 15 and 17 September. The minister needs to answer the following questions. Why did we accept the A1GP when the New South Wales government refused to pay a sanction fee on economic grounds? Did the Queensland government contact the New South Wales government and ask for an economic analysis of the A1GP event—or did it just take the word of IMG? Why is the minister, the member for Mansfield, happy to give Queensland a reject that even New South Wales would not accept? Why is the public interest protected only by a due diligence investigation conducted by IMG when $11.6 million of taxpayers’ money is on the table? There are also questions to be asked about the television broadcast agreements that were in place for the A1GP and questions about the freight arrangements. People who are involved in this industry have told me that if you are going to freight cars you need to have at least a week’s notice. Yet the day before that was to happen we had footage of people saying, ‘We haven’t got a booking, but we’ll happily take them if they come.’ Those questions need to be answered by the minister. He needs to provide those answers to this House, and, as per this motion, he needs to provide them within 24 hours. There are numerous other questions about Tony Teixeira and the original purchase of A1GP by Tony Teixeira from Sheikh Maktoum Hasher Maktoum Al Maktoum and Energem Resources, which was struck off the London Exchange. There are also questions of probity. A minister responsible for $11.6 million of taxpayers’ money should have availed himself of the knowledge, or attempted to avail himself of that knowledge but, as I have already said, he did not seek to test the statements that had been provided. That is why we are calling on the members opposite to support this motion. Let us not weaken the reputation of the government and this parliament any further. I ask the minister to provide the information so that we can get it out into the open and we can have confidence in the future of Queensland. Mr DEMPSEY (Bundaberg—LNP) (5.40 pm): I rise to second the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. The fact is that unethical behaviour was exhibited by the sports minister and unethical behaviour continues to be rewarded by this tired and stale Labor government. Mr REEVES: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I find those words offensive and I ask for them to be withdrawn. 2964 Motion 28 Oct 2009

Mr DEMPSEY: If he finds them offensive I will withdraw. The fact is that this behaviour continues to be rewarded by this tired and stale Labor government, a Labor government that puts media spin and supporting Labor mates above democracy and the rights of the people of Queensland. Even today in question time the minister could not get the facts right. Yesterday in Hansard, on page 2802, he stated that he knew the event was cancelled on the morning of Saturday, 17 October 2009—five days out from the event. But in his answer this morning to the honourable member for Callide, Mr Seeney, he stated— If someone were to have told me 10 days prior to the event on the weekend that we would get over 200,000 people, I would not have believed them. He would not have believed them 10 days out from the event, but he knew then, so many days before, that the event was actually cancelled. It was put to the minister in this parliament and by the media that he knew the truth, that he knew he had doubts, that he knew he had concerns over the staging of the A1GP. But he was not upfront with the people of Queensland as to those concerns. Both the minister and Mackenroth stated months ago that they had concerns, but they fobbed that off as innuendo and rumour. The minister also further stated that he had actually spoken to the CEO in charge of A1GP and had received guarantees. Even though the sky was falling in, he could not believe what was happening and put $11.6 million of Queensland families’ money at risk. Other multinational companies, creditors and courts in the land were saying one could not trust this person or the company. Yet the minister was being blindly led down this path and did not show due diligence in the care of the hard-earned tax dollars provided by the people of Queensland. For the minister to turn around and say in the last dying days of the event that he had organised a V8 Supercar series for which he is to be congratulated beggars belief. This is not what the taxpayers signed up for and certainly was not an international event televised live throughout 150 countries to bring international visitors to the Gold Coast. There was a series of events with everyone telling the minister to be careful. It started on 25 January 2009 in New Zealand when the A1GP event in that country avoided cancellation because the Team New Zealand principal personally paid the freight costs. On 8 February, the Indonesian A1GP event was cancelled. On 29 April, the A1GP event in Mexico was cancelled. On 3 May 2009, A1GP cars were seized by Delivered on Time. On 12 May, wind-up applications of A1GP were commenced. On 24 June, the UK High Court actually wound up A1GP operations. Then we had a series of questions that were unanswered here in parliament. That culminated in the actual official withdrawing of the A1GP on 17 October 2009. That series of events was not answered by this minister or this government. This arrogant government, Labor mate Terry Mackenroth and the minister continued not to listen. When Mackenroth was first questioned about the cancellation of this event he reported to the media that his job was safe. He had not a care for the loss of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money and the significant reduction in the economic benefit to this state—only for his own self-serving interest. After all of this, were this minister and the government open and transparent with the people of Queensland? They chose to blame everyone else instead of take responsibility. The minister knew that the chairman, Terry Mackenroth, was resigning. It was not that he could not come up with the answer; the fact was that he knew the truth and he knowingly did not tell the truth. In a court, that is actually withholding evidence. Mr REEVES: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I find those words offensive and I ask for them to be withdrawn. Mr DEMPSEY: I withdraw. The fact that he knew that Terry Mackenroth had resigned, and also the fact that we had asked a series of questions and he knew the answers to the questions but could not give an answer to this parliament and the people of Queensland, just shows what this government is capable of. The minister and this government continue to show total disregard and abuse of the parliamentary process by way of their actions and their inability to be upfront with Queenslanders. Mr REEVES: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I find those words offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER: I would have to look at Hansard. The minister claims to find some words offensive. It will help the House if you withdraw and we will move on. Mr DEMPSEY: I withdraw. We all understand company governance and confidentiality, but it is not hard to be honest with the people of Queensland. A company and the people in that company are beholden to their shareholders and investors. Investors, however, in the Queensland government are the people of Queensland and they deserve to have an honest, transparent government. Queenslanders deserve to know that their money is being invested and financially managed by this state government. 28 Oct 2009 Motion 2965

Hon. PG REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Sport) (5.45 pm): I move the following amendment— That all words after ‘notes’ be deleted and the following words inserted: • that the Auditor-General will conduct an audit into the Gold Coast Events Corporation, the Gold Coast Motor Events Company and relevant government agencies in relation to the SuperGP event; • that the Auditor-General has powers to conduct this inquiry including full and free access to all documents and property belonging to, in the custody of or under these entities’ control; • that the Government has commissioned an additional review into the event to be conducted by David Williams; • that the Terms of Reference for the Williams review include an analysis of the circumstances, provision of conclusions and recommendations for the future staging of the event; • that the Minister for Sport will provide all information held by his office or himself in relation to this matter to the Auditor- General and the Williams review and any further information that may be requested in this regard; and • that both the Auditor-General report and the Williams review will be tabled in the Parliament when completed. The opposition should note that Mr David Williams has been appointed to undertake a comprehensive and independent review of the Gold Coast SuperGP event. Mr Williams is one of the state’s most experienced event managers. His independent review will be complemented by the Auditor-General’s regular audit, which has been brought forward and will also include an examination of the A1GP contract. The independent Williams review will analyse the governance undertaken by the event organisers ahead of the 2009 event and will provide recommendations for the future of this major motor racing event on the Gold Coast. I will provide to both the independent reviewer and the auditor all documents available to me regarding A1GP. I look forward to the outcomes of both the review and the audit. The unprofessional A1GP organisation let us down badly. They misled the people of the Gold Coast, the people of Queensland, the government and the organisers of the Nikon SuperGP. The event promoter and the Queensland government had actively pursued advice from A1GP for several months amid speculation about the financial health of the organisation. Despite all the rumours, they continued to act as if they were coming to Surfers Paradise. They booked and paid for accommodation and the TV broadcast, obtained visas for their drivers and booked pre-race training time at Queensland Raceway. The international teams for the event were also announced and A1GP also continued to provide written and verbal assurances. In fact, I spoke personally to the chairman of A1GP on 14 September, at which time he reiterated to me his assurances that A1GP would be on the Gold Coast in October. Prior to that, on 3 September, he had given that same commitment in writing. These commitments continued to be received right up until 14 October and included such things as the team lists, accommodation bookings and a letter claiming all financial issues had been resolved. On 17 October the A1GP officially advised it would not be able to participate in the Nikon SuperGP. Upon receiving this advice, the promoter, the Gold Coast Motor Events Co., terminated the agreement it held with A1GP. Without any concrete evidence that the A1GP would not be turning up, the event promoter had no ability to cancel the contract in place. The contract could only be, and was, cancelled once there was documentary evidence that the contractual conditions were unable to be met. The Gold Coast Motor Events Co. will pursue any legal options at its disposal to take action against A1GP. Despite A1GP’s withdrawal, more than 205,000 people voted with their feet and attended the Nikon SuperGP. That is a fantastic effort considering the current economic climate. More than 205,000 people proved the critics wrong and ensured this event was a success. The SuperGP is an annual motorsport event that delivers business, tourism and sport benefits to the Gold Coast and Queensland. This event is great for the Gold Coast, great for local jobs and great for Queensland tourism. It is a credit to everyone involved that such a terrific event was put together so quickly. My sincere thanks go out once again to V8 Supercars Australia chairman, Tony Cochrane, and all of the V8 drivers and their teams for stepping up and delivering an exciting new race program. Special thanks also to the Bowden family for their extreme generosity that allowed the Pirtek Australian Legends category to go ahead and Crusher for his great idea. I also acknowledge the hardworking people on the ground and all the volunteers for getting on with the job of delivering the event. There has been a lot of misinformation about this event circulated by those opposite. The simple fact is that the Gold Coast Motor Events Co. had a contract which it had to fulfil. We could not legally break that contract. However, once it became apparent that the A1GP could not fulfil the contract I stepped in as minister, as any minister should, to ensure this event was a success. I rolled up my sleeves—I did not carp on the sidelines—and worked with the promoter and V8 Supercars to develop an alternative program that was as good as, if not better than, that which was originally planned. Then I went out and promoted the program. Why did I do that? Not to protect my job but to protect Gold Coast jobs. 2966 Motion 28 Oct 2009

Hon. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading) (5.50 pm): I second the amendment moved by the sports minister. This year’s Nikon SuperGP was a fantastic event for motor sports fans, the Gold Coast economy, local jobs and for Queensland tourism generally. It was always going to be a tough year for attracting tourism numbers to the event. We cannot forget that the domestic and international tourism industries have suffered significantly over the past 24 months. We have had bad weather, airline cuts and the global financial crisis which affected overseas and domestic visitation. Now we have the Australian dollar. By the way, Monaco was down 40 per cent this year. That is the effect that the global financial crisis has had on motor racing. While importers are celebrating the strength of the Australian dollar at the moment, I can tell honourable members that the tourism industry is not. Internationals are hesitant to come here as they will not get the value they once did and locals are ditching local holidays for cheap overseas holidays as a result of the strong dollar. Whilst we are starting to see some recovery within the tourism industry, we are still some way from getting to the visitor numbers and expenditure we would like. Out of the disappointment surrounding the 2009 event, it has to be said that the revised racing format, which saw 600 kilometres of V8 Supercar action over Saturday and Sunday along with the return of the top 10 shoot-out, was outstanding. With more racing action than any other V8 event bar Bathurst, this was the best outcome in the circumstances and it delighted V8 Supercar fans. On the other issue, now that the opposition finally has a few lawyers over there, including the member for Clayfield, I point out that the simple fact of the matter is that when a contract is on foot there is no breach, there is no anticipatory breach—we cannot base a recision of a contract on rumour and gossip; there has to be a breach or an anticipatory breach. All the minister could do was ask the appropriate questions and when he got the answers there was no ability to rescind the contract at that stage. The lawyers amongst them should try to educate the rest of their mates. I would like to take this opportunity to extend my congratulations not just to the winners of the featured V8 Supercar events but to all the competitors, support crews, volunteers, spectators— spectators from that side of the fence as well. They cannot get their stories straight. Some attended and others were ringing people up saying, ‘For Christ’s sake, don’t go. Whatever you do, don’t go.’ Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is unparliamentary. The expression is unparliamentary. Mr LAWLOR: I withdraw the expression. They were ringing their mates saying, ‘Don’t go, whatever you do.’ They were death writing the event from the outset. The SuperGP continued the trend of providing spectators with more than just motor racing. The on and off track entertainment, including live music and the air show, continued to deliver the expected thrills. Despite the tough tourism environment and the withdrawal of the A1GP, fans still turned out in support of this great Gold Coast event with more than 205,000 people attending over four days. TV ratings also proved this event was a hit with racing fans, with 2.15 million people in the five major Australian metropolitan markets watching all or part of the event’s two-day coverage. The average audience on Sunday, the feature day, was up seven per cent compared with last year. In 2008 an average of 537,000 people watched the Sunday’s racing compared to 577,000 this year. That is tourism exposure for Queensland that we cannot put a dollar value on. Most importantly for the Gold Coast, the event was beamed into New Zealand, which remains the Gold Coast’s and Queensland’s biggest international market, with over 26 per cent of international tourists coming from New Zealand. Their No. 1 destination is the Gold Coast. Mr Messenger: Good speech, bro! Mr LAWLOR: I take that interjection. You have a head like an Aratula mailbox: big and empty. Tourism Queensland and Gold Coast Tourism are working tirelessly to open up the plethora of opportunities that exist in this market. Middle Eastern visitors travel in large groups— (Time expired) Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (5.55 pm): The Gold Coast is a parochial city. We love our sporting events and, in fact, have had many of the best teams in Queensland across many different codes. I rise to speak to this motion that will hopefully confirm the public confidence in the integrity and dignity of parliament after yet another state Labor-led debacle. Phil Reeves is the new Gordon Nuttall and the beneficiary of Labor’s legalised mistruth laws. If they choose to use their numbers to protect— Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will refer to the minister by his correct title. Mr REEVES: I find those words highly offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER: The minister has asked for a withdrawal. Ms BATES: I withdraw. This will be another testament of a government that is out of touch, on the nose and arrogant. In response to repeated questioning from the opposition, the minister evaded the questions and it is time he came clean to the people of Queensland that it was his negligence and lack of diligence that allowed this debacle to occur in the first place. 28 Oct 2009 Motion 2967

Yet again we are seeing an example of how this Bligh government is prone to mismanagement. Mismanage the economy and deliver an $85.5 billion debt—check. Mismanage Queensland’s education system so our teachers are amongst the lowest paid in the country—check. Mismanage the once vibrant, international, annual open car event on the Gold Coast by announcing just one week prior to the event’s start that the cars are not coming and, ‘We’re going to option B which, by the way, we are still working out’—check. Given that Queensland taxpayers subsidise the event to the tune of $11.6 million, one would expect due diligence would have been undertaken with alternative plans for different scenarios. But it seems due diligence is a dirty word for this government, similar to hospital bed shortages and ‘ramping’. This is highlighted by the actions of the former sports minister who signed a contract with a motor racing organisation whose parent company allegedly owes approximately $25 million to more than 300 creditors. Normally I like to point out that this government only plans to plan, but it did not even do that this time. How could it not have a contingency plan for an event that generates substantial economic benefits to the Gold Coast and Queensland? We have heard the Premier continually claim that she is a Gold Coast girl, yet her failure and that of her government on this issue shows that she does not have the Gold Coast’s best interests in mind. Their actions have undermined the integrity and accountability of the government of Queensland. They have also shown that their absolute priority was to cover up for their mates with the revelation that the Minister for Sport sat on the resignation of the chairman of the Gold Coast Motor Events Co., Terry Mackenroth, for a whole week. Yet it was the minister who ridiculed the LNP when we questioned the government about the A1GP event in parliament. Contrary to the minister saying we were ‘digging dirt’ as the opposition, we owed it to the Queensland taxpayers to question the running of this event after the management company went into liquidation. It is time—in fact well overdue—that the Premier and respective ministers respected the integrity of question time and improved their answers. Time and time again we have seen the Minister for Primary Industries, the Minister for Climate Change and the one who has taken avoidance to an art level, the Minister for Health, completely ignore questions asked of them and instead manage to waste the time allocated to them to talk on issues completely irrelevant to what was asked. Incredibly, at no time did the liquidator receive a call from Minister Reeves or, indeed, anyone from his office after the A1GP cars were seized and locked up, and these cars were locked up way back in May. Surely the seizure of these cars would have set off a few warning bells or at least galvanised the minister into ensuring a backup strategy was available. This tired, arrogant and old Labor government needs to stop treating Queensland voters like second-class citizens. Credit must be given to Tony Cochrane and the V8s for stepping up and filling the void. At short notice they worked around the clock and were able to come up with a schedule to fill the four days. Among the many things that this Bligh government cannot get right, earlier this week it was almost comical to hear the Premier and the minister claim that 110 countries were showing the race. However, when questioned further about this it was clarified that only three countries showed live broadcasts. What happened to the international exposure that this event used to generate? As a result of the debacle that was this year’s event, crowd numbers were down from 297,000 in 2007-08 to 205,000 this year. Those are the lowest crowd figures since 1994. Local businesses that suffered through the road closures and loss of normal trade are feeling the effects of this decrease. Accommodation occupancy was well down, with some hotels reporting a 40 per cent decrease. It will be interesting to read the different audit reports when they are completed and compare the differences. Again Labor cronyism has reared its ugly head. Rather than pleading for leniency and expecting voters to forgive them because they were not told the truth, it is time for somebody from this government to step up to the plate and accept responsibility, whether in full or partially, for this debacle. The event is a vital part of the Gold Coast calendar. Is has been an event of international standing, which is what this Labor government promised the people of the Gold Coast and the people of Queensland. I can only hope that the Premier and the minister are more diligent and thorough with the Gold Coast’s bid for the 2018 Commonwealth Games. I can assure this government that the LNP and, indeed, the residents of the Gold Coast will not tolerate another debacle and we will be watching this process very carefully. Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (6.00 pm): We heard the member for Mudgeeraba say the words ‘out of touch’ and ‘arrogant’. When it comes to support for the SuperGP, only one group is out of touch and arrogant, and that is the Leader of the Opposition— Mr Horan interjected. Mrs KEECH: Mr Speaker, I am trying to contribute to the debate and all I am getting from the member for Toowoomba South is rude interjections. As I said, they are out of touch and arrogant when it comes to support for the SuperGP. Let us get some balance back into the argument. I can understand why the member for Toowoomba South and others on his side do not want to hear the facts. It is a fact that more than 200,000 people attended the event, and every one of those 200,000 people thoroughly enjoyed themselves. The opposition would have us believe that it was a complete failure, but nothing could be further from the truth. 2968 Motion 28 Oct 2009

Certainly crowd numbers were down, and the minister has recognised that. Like all other major events, not only in Queensland but throughout Australia and the world, numbers have been down because of the global financial crisis. Congratulations go to the minister for his hard work in bringing the event together. The crowd numbers highlight the importance of major events not only for the Gold Coast but also for Queensland. With the Gold Coast economy and local businesses dependent on regular visitor influxes such as we saw last weekend, events such as the SuperGP will continue to boost the bottom line of hotels, restaurants, shops and local attractions. We heard from members opposite that hoteliers were complaining. I heard nothing like that. I heard that numbers were up and, further afield from the precinct, that shopkeepers were really enjoying the contribution from tourists and those attracted to the V8s. I commend the V8 Supercars chairman. At the government reception, in congratulating not only the government but also the minister, he said that he believed that the V8 Supercars would be a major drawcard and he was absolutely right. He also commended the minister for his incredible hard work. The minister worked 24 hours a day, seven days a week to ensure that the event would be a success. The chairman predicted that the V8 Supercars would be the major drawcard, as they were in Townsville, where 168,000 people attended a three-day V8 event. It was a tremendous success. I join the minister in thanking the organisers of the V8 Supercars for putting together at short notice a revised racing format, for their enthusiasm and for putting on such an exciting and crowd- pleasing show for fans and visitors. The drivers and their teams worked tremendously hard and we can be very proud of the way that they pulled together at the very last minute to provide such great successes. The day was marked by nostalgia. My favourite moment was the Jack Brabham re- enactment by Jack’s grandson Matthew Brabham. I saw Matthew race go-karts as a nine-year-old. He has a great future ahead of him. He was a real crowd-pleaser. Based on previous events and the crowd numbers over the weekend, the estimated benefits for the Gold Coast are expected to be in the tens of millions of dollars, with hundreds of jobs created locally. Like the minister, I particularly thank the volunteers, who did a great job. They looked very smart in their grey outfits. They worked long and hard to ensure the event ran very smoothly. Events like the SuperGP are incredibly important, not only for attracting tourists to the Gold Coast but also for branding the Gold Coast as a tourist destination. As we know, the Gold Coast is Australia’s No. 1 holiday destination and events such as the SuperGP will go a long way to ensure the Gold Coast continues to attract visitors. When it comes to support for tourism and major events, Gold Coasters know that they can rely on the Bligh Labor government. Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (6.05 pm): The Gold Coast Indy has been a part of my public life for 19 years and I believe that it is an absolute disgrace that this Bligh Labor government has yet again served up a monumental embarrassment to the Gold Coast and the taxpayers of Queensland. The Gold Coast SuperGP was a limited success only because of the hardworking people behind the scenes who had to hurriedly deal with this government’s failure to deliver what was promised to the business and sporting community and the public of Queensland. This mismanagement and the blow-out in the budget that I believe will be revealed in the Auditor-General’s report are the total fault of the Premier and the Minister for Sport. They have confirmed that they are incompetent in delivering this type of event to Queenslanders. The Gold Coast motor-racing carnival has gone from an international racing event as part of the Indy world circuit to a restricted local event with just the V8s providing the Aussie battle between Holden and Ford. I have nothing against the V8s, but we need an international content specifically to lure international tourists and television coverage to the beautiful Gold Coast. As the inaugural chairman of the Indy carnival events committee, as appointed by then Minister Tom Burns—he would roll in his grave if he witnessed the shemozzle that this minister presided over—and as a great supporter of the whole Indy carnival, I am disgusted at the incompetent management of this year’s event by the minister on behalf of the Bligh government. Its management of this event mirrors its management of the state of Queensland, which is disastrous. It was a simple task to do due diligence on the brand-new attraction of the A1 cars, which were supposed to maintain the international appeal of the event to justify the Queensland taxpayers’ continued support of the event. It was bad enough that then Minister Judy Spence wasted $50,000 on a junket to America, supposedly to guarantee the continued attendance of the Indy cars at the event. Many of us supported the government’s attempts to have the A1GP cars replace the Indy, but the shallow and haphazard way in which the government and the minister investigated that commercial enterprise before they handed over the $11.6 million in taxpayer funds beggars belief. It demonstrates incompetence, naivety and business stupidity to the highest degree. The pathetic attempts by the minister to say that the event was a huge success given the circumstances belies the fact that it was his ministerial responsibility that led to the last-minute debacle of the cancellation that ruined the reputation of the Gold Coast as the home of major events in Queensland. This sends the worst possible message to those people contemplating allocating the Commonwealth Games to the Gold Coast, and the rejection of that bid may well lie on Minister Reeves’s 28 Oct 2009 Motion 2969 head. The minister should be ashamed of his kindergarten efforts at ministerial responsibility. To publicly congratulate himself on the supposedly fantastic job he had done is typical of the bombastic arrogance that characterises this Labor government, which has been in unfettered power in Queensland for far too long. As a proud Gold Coaster, it hurts me to see businesses suffering in already difficult financial times because of this government’s incompetence. The retail turnover of some businesses is down by as much as 70 per cent. Even the on-track accommodation houses were duped by the government, which forced them to pay $240 to the event management for every booking when it could not deliver the original product that the people had paid for. Common decency and moral responsibility should have seen that part of the booking fee returned to the occupants. For months the dogs were barking that the A1GP enterprise was a shonky lot and would not be coming, yet Minister Reeves called it ‘rumour and innuendo’ and failed unforgivably to follow up the stench emanating from the A1GP operators, who had their cars locked up for not paying bills previously. No amount of face-saving whitewashing by hastily appointed Labor Party mates to do a report absolving the minister of any blame will deny the truth that it was the minister’s dillydallying around the reality of the A1 situation that led to the last minute cancellation. The A1GP should have been sacked months ago when it would have been possible to rearrange the entertainment to incorporate other forms of international car racing. The only decent thing left for the Premier to do—and I do note her absence, not supporting the minister here tonight— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! Member for Mermaid Beach. There have been a number of rulings today about referring to members when they are not here. Mr STEVENS: Yes, I withdraw—is to sack her Minister for Sport for letting down the people, businesses and the sporting community of Queensland. Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (6.10 pm): The former Gold Coast Indy became an iconic Queensland event that motor racing fans from across the world became familiar with. The benefit to the Gold Coast economy over the past two decades has been in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars. This year saw the start of a new era of motor racing on the coast, with the SuperGP becoming the new name for the event. Obviously the event organisers were let down by the A1GP organisation, as was the Gold Coast let down by the A1GP organisation, which was a no-show. But, as I have heard the minister say before, that organisation probably did us a big favour by staying away. My Labor colleagues and I from the Gold Coast were hearing the speculation about the A1GP, and when this reached fever pitch in the week before the event we asked the Minister for Sport to meet with us on the Gold Coast and tell us of his strategy to salvage the event. It is too important an event for us not to have asked the minister to personally intervene. The minister met with us on Thursday, 15 October and agreed to step in and have a plan B ready to activate if indeed the A1GP was a no-show. On Saturday I received a call from the minister advising that he would be announcing the withdrawal of the A1GP and a replacement format that afternoon, with the V8 Supercars as the centrepiece. And what a new configuration it was! It has to be said that the revised racing format, which saw 600 kilometres of V8 Supercar racing action over the Saturday and Sunday, along with the return of the top 10 shoot-out, was outstanding. With more racing action than any other V8 event bar Bathurst, this was the best outcome that could have been hoped for in the circumstances and delighted V8 Supercar fans. I loved the headlines in the Gold Coast Bulletin following the weekend saying, ‘200,000 people can’t be wrong’. Those 200,000 people came from all over Queensland, including from the electorates of Mudgeeraba, Coomera and Gaven. I was out there right up to the day of the event encouraging my businesses and my constituents to get along and see this event. I know that many businesses and constituents of mine went to this event for the very first time. From what I hear they had a fabulous time. They really supported it and they said to me that they would be back next time. This is what supporting this year’s event was all about. It is about continuing that support and keeping those people coming back again year after year, and they will be there again next year. I take this opportunity to congratulate the V8 race car winners from last weekend—Garth Tander, Mark Winterbottom and Craig Lowndes. Like me, many Gold Coasters got behind our local based drivers—the enforcer, Russell Ingall, who is a great constituent of mine; and James Courtney and Steven Johnson, who are wonderful young men. I congratulate them. It was great to see them out there. With a son named Brock after the late Peter Brock, it is no surprise that my family are true racing car fans. It is great to see such close competition as the series heads towards the final rounds of the 2009 season. The addition of the Pirtek Australian Legends proved extremely popular. Watching the legends and descendants of the legends wrestle legendary vehicles from motor sport around the Surfers Paradise track was also fabulous. So many people really enjoyed it. There was something for everyone. To see the likes of Dick Johnson and Glenn Seton back racing is something that motor sport fans did not think they would see again. I thank the drivers for participating and the Bowden family for their generosity in providing many of the cars. 2970 Motion 28 Oct 2009

I also acknowledge the efforts of another wonderful constituent of mine, Mr Brett ‘Crusher’ Murray for his outstanding efforts. He is a wonderful gentleman and a lot of people have a lot of respect for him. Those people in the know know that this government did everything it could to ensure that the weekend’s event was absolutely fabulous. I also place on record my admiration for the drivers and teams participating in the support categories. The Aussie Racing Cars as usual put on a great show and the minis certainly looked at home racing around the track. The crowd got to see the Formula Fords, one of the premier junior development series, competing. It is great to lend support to the development of up and coming drivers and teams and to see them performing so competitively. The opposition has been opposed to this year’s event from day one. I think it is shameful that the LNP Gold Coast members spent their time running around putting the event down but were willing to take advantage of the benefits of being invited to the event and to the launch functions. I am supporting the minister’s amendments. The Gold Coast ALP members will work very hard with the minister to ensure a great racing event will be delivered for the Gold Coast locals and visitors next year. Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (6.15 pm): I listened with some interest to the member for Broadwater extolling the virtues of Russell Ingall. Let us see what Russell Ingall had to say. He said, ‘Mate, I knew months ago that it wasn’t going to be a goer.’ That is what Russell Ingall said. He obviously did not ring up the member for Broadwater and impart that little bit of knowledge to her on the way through. Let us not beat around the bush with some innate sense of knowledge that the member for Broadwater had when her own constituent, Russell Ingall, who drives V8s, knew months ago that it would not be a start. We have heard a lot of spin from government members tonight. Indeed, we have heard a lot of spin from the sports minister; the Premier; the former minister, the member for Mount Gravatt; and the Deputy Premier. We have heard spin from the general manager, Greg Hooten, the former chairman, Terry Mackenroth, and others about the Surfers Paradise motor race known as the SuperGP, with no GP. There were no grand prix cars whatsoever—a super nothing race, organised by a super nothing minister. We had the spin about the Indy cars first—the $50,000 that it cost to sign them up, and that turned into a farce. We had the spin about the A1GP being signed up and that was only a letter of intent, and that was a farce. We had the farce of the naming rights sponsor Nitro and the minister’s inability to manage that aspect of the SuperGP. When he was asked about it in this place, he said, ‘No, it is all on board. They are signed up,’ and 10 days later they were broke. Then we had the farce of the cars not turning up at all. Then we had the farce and the spin of the 100,000 drop in attendance being a good result—down by a third on the previous year’s attendances. After the Premier had tried to inoculate the minister somehow by saying that 250,000 would be good, it did not even get to the Premier’s magical 250,000. There was a 100,000 drop in attendance and we had reports of retailers doing less business by up to 70 per cent. That is all that it has been—nothing but spin, not just in the last week or two but in the last 18 months. That is why the opposition leader’s motion tonight needs to be passed by this House. It is the duty of this House—not of the Auditor-General, not of some independent inquiry—to make inquiries in relation to statements made to this House in answer to questions by this minister. Because we have that duty, we also have the power to inquire, to call for and to order the production of documents that shed light on the debacle that played out under the nose of the Minister for Sport. That power has been around since the 16th century. It has been described by Lord Coke in the 17th century as ‘the grand inquest of the nation’. It has been described as— ... that House which forms the Great Inquest of the Nation, has a power to institute inquiries and to order the attendance of witnesses, and, in case of disobedience ... bring them in custody to the Bar for the purpose of examination. This power does not rely on statute and it does not rely on standing orders. It is a plenary power of this House like the power to pass laws. This parliament has the power. It has the obligation. But the question to be answered is: do the members of this government have the intestinal fortitude to face up to the inquiry? We have seen the minister’s amendment that he has moved tonight that he seeks to pass. This shoves the idea of an inquiry off on to someone else, as this government always does. It is never this government’s responsibility. It passes off the inquiry—whether it is a health inquiry or whether it is an inquiry into water supply. Whenever things go wrong, this government shoves it off to an inquiry. It has completely abandoned the idea of responsible government, of ministers and the executive being responsible to the parliament. Ms Jones interjected. Mr NICHOLLS: We hear the Minister for Climate Change. She was happy the numbers were down and the A1GP cars were not there because there were fewer emissions. We know what she and her department want. They would like to ban motor racing. That is what she is happy about, and she has not even denied it. 28 Oct 2009 Motion 2971

What we have here is an answer to a question asked in this parliament where a minister ignored the warnings, and he ignored the warnings from across the world. He asked, ‘Where was the concrete evidence?’ They had cars in lock up, they were a company in liquidation, they had not paid for the tyres, they had not paid for the engines, they did not have drivers, they did not race in Indonesia, they did not race in Mexico—because of a Radiohead concert—and they only made it to New Zealand because the promoter bailed them out. What more evidence of incompetence does the minister need? What more evidence do we need that this minister needs to answer this motion and produce the documents of his knowledge to this House? He needs to answer the question of whether he is responsible and whether we have a responsible government, ministerial responsibility and a true Westminster system or whether we have an executive farce. Mrs SMITH (Burleigh—ALP) (6.20 pm): The Nikon SuperGP is an event that the people of the Gold Coast and the people of Queensland can be proud of. What I lack in passion, I make up for in loyalty. I attended the event last Sunday, taking my two grandsons with me. While I cannot claim to be a revhead, I certainly enjoyed the event and the boys were ecstatic—seeing V8 races that they have only ever watched on television. This is an iconic event that has been running now for 19 years, and the unprofessionalism of the A1GP organisation should not be allowed to tarnish this event. It is bad enough that the opposition, at every turn, is trying to damage the event and in turn the Gold Coast’s tourism industry. When the loss of the A1GP cars looked like damaging the event, the Labor members on the Gold Coast met with the minister and urged that a plan B be implemented. The minister delivered on his commitment to us by negotiating with V8 Supercars Australia to expand their presence at the event. The Gold Coast is the home of the V8s and I welcomed the opportunity for them to show off in front of a home crowd. The revised format was a success and the absence of A1GP was barely noticed by those who mattered most—the motorsport fans. The revised racing format, which saw 600 kilometres of V8 Supercars action over Saturday and Sunday, along with the return of the top 10 shoot-out, was outstanding. More than 205,000 people over the four-day event saw more racing action than at any other V8 event outside of Bathurst. Considering the current economic climate, with other events also suffering from a lack of numbers, this number may not have been exceeded even if the A1GP had been part of the event. With the late withdrawal of A1GP, this was a fabulous outcome and a credit to everyone involved. The addition of the Pirtek Australian Legends proved to be extremely popular with fans of all ages and I hope they will take to the streets of Surfers Paradise again next year. The support categories, including the Aussie Racing Cars, the Minis and the Formula Fords, also put on a great show. The past 19 years of delivering successful motor racing events on the Gold Coast should not be forgotten, particularly when over the past three years alone the event has delivered well in excess of an estimated $150 million in economic benefit to the Gold Coast and the state. To help deliver this fantastic event, my thanks go to the more than 1,300 volunteers who assisted over the weekend with things like flag, fire and recovery marshalling, and checking tickets at the gates, grandstands and corporate facilities. Your efforts did not go unappreciated and we hope to see you back again for next year’s event. The Gold Coast economy is based on tourism. Any negative publicity does untold damage to small business owners, suppliers and accommodation providers. The front page of today’s Gold Coast Bulletin and subsequent pages detail Gold Coast City Councillor Susie Douglas’s lack of support for the race. I find it interesting that Councillor Douglas and her husband, the member for Gaven, would accept the hospitality in the government box when she does not support the event itself. The Gold Coast Bulletin, on the other hand, has made no secret of its support, acknowledging the economic benefits the event brings to the coast. From the many people I spoke with on the weekend, I believe the V8 Supercars can carry the event. I was told by many fans that, while the overseas cars were a bit of a novelty, V8s are the real muscle cars. To quote a young man at the track: ‘Aussies love their V8s. I’ll be back next year.’ The member for Springwood tells me she has been to motor racing events all around Australia and she found this one to be one of the best. Like her, I look forward to a bigger and better show next year—the 20th anniversary of the event. Division: Question put—That the minister’s amendment be agreed to. AYES, 46—Boyle, Choi, Croft, 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, Robertson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Darling NOES, 32—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Foley, Hobbs, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Seeney, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey. Tellers: Horan, Messenger Resolved in the affirmative. 2972 Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 28 Oct 2009

Division: Question put—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to. AYES, 46—Boyle, Choi, Croft, 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, Robertson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Darling NOES, 32—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Foley, Hobbs, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Seeney, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey. Tellers: Horan, Messenger Resolved in the affirmative. Motion, as agreed— That this House notes— • that the Auditor-General will conduct an audit into the Gold Coast Events Corporation, the Gold Coast Motor Events Company and relevant government agencies in relation to the SuperGP event; • that the Auditor-General has powers to conduct this inquiry including full and free access to all documents and property belonging to, in the custody of or under these entities’ control; • that the Government has commissioned an additional review into the event to be conducted by David Williams; • that the Terms of Reference for the Williams review include an analysis of the circumstances, provision of conclusions and recommendations for the future staging of the event; • that the Minister for Sport will provide all information held by his office or himself in relation to this matter to the Auditor- General and the Williams review and any further information that may be requested in this regard; and • that both the Auditor-General report and the Williams review will be tabled in the Parliament when completed. Sitting suspended from 6.34 pm to 7.35 pm.

MOTION

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (7.35 pm), by leave, without notice: I move— That, notwithstanding anything contained in standing and sessional orders, from 7.30 pm government business be postponed to enable consideration of general business and for this day’s sitting the House can continue to meet past 10 pm until the adjournment is moved, to be followed by a 30-minute adjournment debate. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

CRIMINAL CODE (HONESTY AND INTEGRITY IN PARLIAMENT) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 7 October (see p. 2666), on motion of Mr Langbroek— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (7.35 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill. On Friday, 9 December 2005 an extraordinary thing happened in this parliament. The state Labor government grossly abused its position by advising the then Governor of Queensland to recall parliament on that day in order for the Labor Party to protect one of its own—namely, the former member for Sandgate, Gordon Nuttall. That protection was provided by way of a motion moved by the former Premier, Peter Beattie, seconded by the then Deputy Premier and now Premier, Anna Bligh, and supported by 52 members of the then Beattie Labor government, many of whom continue to sit in this place in the Bligh Labor government. For that sordid episode in the history of this place, during which the state Labor government exploited its position and its majority in this parliament, those opposite who supported that motion should be embarrassed and utterly ashamed of themselves. The Labor Party recalled the entire parliament after it had already risen for the end-of-year recess and used its majority to protect Gordon Nuttall from the consequences of his actions, knowingly misleading the parliament. It is almost inconceivable that the Labor Party would consider being so arrogant, but it is instructive and an insight into the contempt with which Labor holds this parliament as an institution. Subsequently, in May 2006 the Beattie Labor government passed through the House an amendment to the Criminal Code which repealed a provision that prohibited members of this parliament from deliberately misleading the House and its committees—a criminal sanction that had accompanied such an offence since the Criminal Code was drafted in 1899 by none other than Sir Samuel Griffith, a former Premier of Queensland, the first Chief Justice of the High Court of the Commonwealth of Australia, and a father of Federation, being prominent amongst those who drafted the Australian Constitution. 28 Oct 2009 Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2973

None of that mattered or counted for much when Peter Beattie and the state government, including many of those who still sit opposite, resolved to tear that particular provision out of the Criminal Code for base political purposes, to protect a Labor mate. In doing so, the state Labor government seriously and fundamentally undermined the confidence in, and fanned the flames of cynicism that exists amongst the people of Queensland in relation to, this parliament. At the time, the LNP opposition strongly opposed the original motion and the subsequent bill on the ground that it undermined the integrity and the standing of the Queensland parliament and compromised a principle of longstanding in the Criminal Code that was sacrificed for political expediency. This bill seeks to take the first step to restore that integrity and standing. The objective of the bill is to amend the Criminal Code and the Parliament of Queensland Act to restore to the code the offence of giving false evidence to the Legislative Assembly and the committees of the Parliament of Queensland. There is a basic expectation that members of parliament will be honest and truthful when representing their constituents in the Queensland parliament. From time to time, members acting in good faith and on the information they have available to them at the time unintentionally provide inaccurate information to the House. It is the responsibility of members in those circumstances as soon as possible after they become aware of that error to correct the record. Members are generally respected in those circumstances because it is understood that mistakes can happen and that it is not necessarily the fault of the members who acted originally in good faith. In contrast, knowingly misleading the parliament is a grave offence and should be dealt with in a very serious way, with strong sanctions and penalties that align with the magnitude of that offence. The bill restores the offence of providing false evidence to the Legislative Assembly or a committee of the Assembly. The bill also amends the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 to ensure that acts of contempt of parliament that amount to providing false evidence are prosecuted under the Criminal Code. Putting this provision back into the Criminal Code is one step in trying to restore the confidence of the people of Queensland in this parliament. Unfortunately, the confidence of the people of Queensland has been significantly undermined in other respects by the actions of the state government. Since the state election on 21 March 2009, public policy positions such as the removal of the fuel tax rebate and the sale of public assets, which were not canvassed with the people of Queensland before or during the state election campaign, have been announced by the Bligh Labor government. Indeed, in both cases these policies were disavowed by the Labor Party prior to the election—a blatant deceit of the people of Queensland. In a sneaky, tricky manoeuvre, the fuel tax rebate was removed and the fire sale of state assets was announced after the election. The other issue that has plagued the state government is the allegations of inappropriate links with lobbyists, many of whom are former Labor MPs, and the extent of their influence over government decisions. The state Labor government voted against the motion moved by the LNP opposition to establish a royal commission to investigate the culture of secrecy, political cronyism and allegations of corruption. In 1987, amid allegations of a similar nature, the then Queensland National Party government had the guts to call a royal commission and appoint Tony Fitzgerald as the commissioner. The result of that royal commission is well known and was a watershed for politics, public administration and government in Queensland. Two decades later, the Bligh government has demonstrated that it does not have the guts to open itself up to the same scrutiny of a royal commission. This bill is a starting point to try to restore the confidence of the people of Queensland in this parliament. We cannot really try to restore confidence in the Bligh government. The Labor Party, even by its own standards, is failing to deliver competent government. In February 1996, there was a change of government in Queensland without a general election. When the parliament met for the first time after that change of government, the first business of the House was to consider a motion of confidence in the new government. The new Leader of the Opposition during that debate was the then member for Brisbane Central, Peter Beattie, who in part said during his contribution to the debate on the motion of confidence— ... the Goss Government was a Government of vision, integrity, honesty and diligence—a Government that had the interests of Queenslanders at heart. Mr Beattie went on to say— Let us not forget that there were no Fitzgerald inquiries, scandals, or gaolings of police commissioners. No Ministers went to prison and there were no financial scandals. We had good, competent Government. This is Peter Beattie and Labor’s test of competent government. Queensland was yet to experience government under Peter Beattie. That was not to be inflicted on the people until July 1998. When we did get it, we saw a royal commission condemn the state Labor government’s mismanagement of Queensland Health across the state, but in Bundaberg in particular. We need a royal commission now, but the state government will not allow it for fear of the alleged culture of secrecy— 2974 Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 28 Oct 2009

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! Honourable member, I have let you have a good run here this evening but you are straying from the provisions of the bill. I ask you to return to it now, please. Mr CRIPPS: I put to the House that, in doing so, the Beattie government failed one of its own tests of competent government. In respect of ministers going to prison, the former member for Currumbin has been in prison and is out already and another, the former member for Sandgate, is in and faces the possibility of another spell. Indeed, the former member for Sandgate is the very person the Beattie government moved to protect in December 2005 by recalling parliament and then, in May 2006, struck down a longstanding provision in the Criminal Code—all for the sake of protecting Labor mates. In doing so, the Beattie government failed another test of its own in relation to competent government. Lastly, in terms of financial scandals, the current circumstances of the government’s own financial position cannot be described as anything but a scandal—with record debt, the loss of our AAA credit rating and budget blow-outs on emergency infrastructure, the fire sale of state owned assets and the increases in taxes, fees and charges, especially given the fact that we enjoyed a decade of economic boom during the tenure of the current government. This is yet another failure of the state Labor government of its own tests of competent government. We do not have competent government in Queensland under Labor, even under its own assessment of competency. Premier Bligh will not be able to resuscitate confidence in her government, but we could take a step in the right direction and attempt to resuscitate confidence in the parliament by passing this bill, introduced by the Leader of the Opposition, to once again make it an offence for a member to knowingly mislead the parliament. I do not think it is too much to ask for the Labor Party to do the decent thing and support the bill. Mr McLINDON (Beaudesert—LNP) (7.45 pm): As the member for Hinchinbrook alluded to, this is a real chance for the government to at last admit to the people some of the mistakes that it has made and commence a journey of credibility and repair. This is a chance for this government to let the people of Queensland know that it is serious about putting truth and honesty back into the chamber. When we think about the classes of kids who go into the public gallery to see how we operate and how we strive every day to instil in them an education that is built on truth, justice and honesty, it is scandalous to think that the very heart, the very core of the system that governs those children in whom we try to instil these values, is not subject to those values itself. That is very concerning for every single Queenslander and for those people who are yet to live here. It sets a poor example and an extremely low benchmark across this nation. It shows Queensland in a very poor light. This government has become so arrogant that it thinks that it can omit one of the most important sections of an act to ensure that it can protect its own and continue down the spiral of dishonesty. That concerns me so much that I decided to pen a poem—and I do not pen poems quickly. It certainly takes a lot of anger and a lot of frustration before I go to that extreme. But I put a few words together and I have called it You Can Count On Me. Ms Darling interjected. Mr McLINDON: It will brighten things up a bit. The member can stay awake that way. In no way at all is this chamber a heaven So I rise here tonight re section 57 And whilst I’ve only been here since 21 March I must begin where it started with Linda Lavarch

In 2006 when things got a touch firey Gordon’s porkies were the subject of an in-depth inquiry It was Anna who defended the then member for Sandgate And said to all Queenslanders ‘Gordo’s my mate’ Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Honourable member, I find the word ‘porkies’ unparliamentary and I ask that you withdraw it. Mr McLINDON: Is that so? That is news to me. I withdraw the word ‘porkies’. I will continue— As Lucas and Barton said he was an ‘honest, decent man’ Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Honourable member, you will refer to the member by his proper title. Mr McLINDON: No worries, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will continue— As the ministers said he was an ‘honest, decent man’ As did other members such as Paul Hoolihan But then things went backwards under closer inspection 28 Oct 2009 Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2975

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Honourable member, I have just asked you to call other members by their proper title, please. Mr McLINDON: Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker— But then things went backwards under closer inspection So to save their mate dissolved a key section

The scary part is this is not just a fable So imagine the talks around cabinet table ‘What can we do to get our mate off the hook? If he goes down, how will we all look?’

So they tossed and they turned, they went into full throttle And they did all they could to save their little green bottle Situations turned desperate, some said it was dire They knew with this smoke there was factional fire!

Jacqueline King knew that Gordo was to himself kiddin’ Telling ‘Sneaky Pete’s’ Chief of Staff, Mr Rob Whiddon But Beattie and Whiddon put it down as a ‘whinge’ And kept those who leaked in the dark on the fringe

Control was then lost after Terry Wood’s sacking Next thing it was on with all factions attacking Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Honourable member, resume your seat, please. You are getting very close to referring to matters that are before the court. I ask you to have a look at standing order 233, which deals with sub judice, and I ask you not to refer to those matters again, please. Mr McLINDON: Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. Continuing on— Mackenroth was in it ankle deep, dirty socks His time was soon up so he fled like a fox

And now all broke loose with brown bags out and buying And a culture began of misleading and lying Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Honourable member, sit down, please. The Speaker today has made a statement with regard to the use of the word that you have just used. I ask you to withdraw that comment and I warn you that I am about to sit you down unless you can keep your speech within the standing orders. Mr McLINDON: Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was under the impression that it was the inference that somebody was lying. I take your direction. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do not argue with me. Withdraw your comment and you may continue. Mr McLINDON: I withdraw my comment and continue— They know all the tricks and all the disguises As a new breed erupts of mini Mike Kaisers Queenslanders lose out—just like you and me As the dodgy plant grows into a Labor family tree

And despite this deceit, they couldn’t care less And pretend that they stand for a social justice But the time is near soon where their days are no longer As moves to oust the Premier grow stronger and stronger

So here is a bill from the LNP straight to you And here is a chance to embrace what is true The government can start their truth rehabilitation And amend their ways to fall in line with the nation 2976 Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 28 Oct 2009

So lets change a culture of fibs here and there That left the A1GP up in the air And the sales of assets and fuel tax as well Since they’ve won the election!, we’ve all gone to hell! Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Information and Communication Technology) (7.51 pm): I will let the previous member’s efforts speak for themselves. A member on that side of parliament is lecturing us about the conduct of this parliament when he could not get through a speech without offending the principles of this parliament and the standing orders. The member had to be sat down on two occasions, yet here he is lecturing us about standards. How typical that is. I heard the member for Kawana a couple of weeks ago talking about Christian values and holding himself aloft from everybody in society with all these great principles that we ought to strive towards. I thought to myself, ‘I know about this bloke. I have heard about him before.’ I went and did a little bit of a search on him and lo and behold on 10 November 2001 Sean Parnell was writing in the Courier-Mail about him and this is what he said— Police will investigate claims a Sunshine Coast teenager’s name and address were used without consent in a letterbox campaign promoting Liberal MP Peter Slipper. Hundreds of homes have received letters from Anita Rew, 18, discussing politics and declaring: ‘Peter’s getting my Number 1 vote on Saturday, why not yours?’ The letters are in basic type, with Miss Rew’s signature and home address, and no political party details. But Miss Rew said yesterday she neither wrote nor signed the letters and accused a friend, Liberal Party member Jarrod Bleijie, of misusing her signature. Miss Rew said she only faxed her signature to Mr Bleijie to decline an invitation to Mr Slipper’s election night function this evening. The Australian Electoral Commission is investigating another piece of Mr Slipper’s campaign advertising, prepared by Mr Bleijie. Advertisements in the form of O’Donnell postcards from Brisbane attack him for not living in Fisher and declares he would take advantage of Greens and Democrats preferences to change border protection laws. Electoral officer Bob Longland said he had sought advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions. These are the people who are lecturing this side of politics about standards and behaviour. This is the third occasion on which I have spoken about this. If those opposite bring it up again I will say the same things. The reality is that we changed two laws, but no-one wants to talk about section 56. Remember the member for Nanango tipping the milk all over the front of the parliament? She could have got three years jail had I gone to the police and complained about her behaviour. We took away a law that had not been used in the 100 years of this parliament. No-one had ever gone down to the police and complained about a member of parliament until Mr Springborg went down there. I heard what the member for Hinchinbrook had to say about the crookedness of the Joh Bjelke-Petersen years. Do members know why no-one ever got done for lying then? Because they never had an estimates procedure. There was never any truthfulness, transparency or accountability. It was a joke. Ministers treated the parliament as their private slush fund. Mr Cripps: They called a royal commission. Mr SCHWARTEN: That is right; they called a royal commission. There was no CMC in those days. When Borbidge came in the first thing he did was try to assassinate the CJC as it was then. Do not lecture us about morality or high standards when I know the miserable standards those opposite got up to in the Borbidge government just those few years ago. Ministers sat for a whole range of things, ranging from incompetence to dishonesty. That was the time of those opposite—2½ years in office. Had we had this legislation we could have quite easily taken them down at any time for misleading the parliament or the estimates committee if they had ever had them. The reality is that the parliament has always dealt with parliamentary infringement. Is this something that every other parliament in the Westminster system has? Does the mother of parliaments, the Canadian parliament, the New Zealand parliament, any parliament in the world, have a provision that if a person misleads a parliamentary committee they go to jail? No, not one of them. It seems that in Queensland we have to have a different law because we cannot trust the politicians in Queensland. The reality is that that lot over there obviously cannot trust themselves. But I know that our system works. There is evidence in one of the prison cells tonight that our system works. If people break the law, whether they be ministers or members of parliament, they will get caught and they will go to jail, and so they should. Mr Cripps: Not in here. Mr SCHWARTEN: Absolutely in here. If someone breaks the law in here, if someone steals in here, they will face the full force of the law. In terms of misleading a parliament or an estimates committee being a jailable offence, members opposite have got to be joking. The reality of it is that those opposite do not even believe this because they have been banging this drum since 8 December 2005. They have gone to a couple of elections with it. Mr Robertson: It is like Heiner. 28 Oct 2009 Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2977

Mr SCHWARTEN: It is like Heiner, but it is actually quite dishonest by those opposite. The reality is that I do not think even they believe that somebody who has been proved to have gone out of their way to tell untruths to an estimates committee should go to jail. What happened to the bloke who did? Did he get off scot-free when the parliament found out that he lied? No, he did not. He got fined $70,000 or $80,000 a year and ultimately lost his seat. That is a pretty hefty fine when one takes into consideration what some of the members opposite have been up to over the years and have had no sanction whatsoever. Some of the people whom those opposite represent—for example, people who rape and pillage national parks—do not even get $70,000 or $80,000 fines. That is what that person was given by this government. To suggest there is no sanction is simply untrue and does not withstand any form of test whatsoever. I said back in 2005 that this was an anachronistic law; that it had never been enacted. The advice from crown law of the day was that it should not be in the Criminal Code. I still hold that to be true. Not one bit of repetitious puffery that I have heard in this debate changes my view on that. Not one skerrick of evidence suggests to me that the British parliament, the mother of all parliaments in the Westminster system, has it wrong. Not one of those systems of parliament, whether it be the Indian parliament or any subcontract of the Westminster system anywhere in the world, has that provision, but the opposition is demanding it here in an exercise that is only politically based. The reality is that there is no necessity whatsoever to revisit this subject. The sanctions of the parliament exist. If anybody wants to mislead a parliamentary estimates committee deliberately, the sanctions are there against them. This parliament can deal with it and has proven in the past that it can. Whether it be the member for Nanango and her One Nation mate, who were disciplined for defiling the front of the parliament and doing something for which schoolchildren would have been severely admonished, or whether it be the behaviour of Jack Paff from One Nation, as honourable members will recall, for being untruthful, the parliament dealt with the parliament’s business, and that is the way it should be. Rushing off to the courts because somebody is alleged to have misled a parliamentary committee is hardly a hanging offence. What I do say is that everybody should be truthful. I am and everybody else I know on this side of the parliament is, too. There will always be somebody who will get it wrong for whatever reason, whether it is deliberate or otherwise. There will always be that exception. I can say this: if they do and as a result they are found guilty by the privileges committee, there will be a sanction. I cannot use the term ‘a tactical untruth’ that was boldly used by the now Leader of Opposition Business and was found by the privileges committee to have not told the truth in this parliament. Should he have been charged by the police? Of course he should not have been charged by the police. Mr Hopper interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: He is off his tablets again and off his rocker. That is true. Mr Hopper: Tell us about that. Mr SCHWARTEN: I am happy to talk to the member if I get some extra time. He can get up and speak the sort of rot that he does. He is one of the people who should be dobbed in to the coppers for his conduct in parliament. (Time expired) Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (8.01 pm): This is the third time we have debated this issue in the parliament—in 2006, and we debated this very same bill in November last year. I have had the opportunity to look over the speeches that were given on the last two occasions and, indeed, the last sitting night when this bill was debated. Anyone who reads those speeches would have to agree that there has been a lot of boring repetition, and not much that is new has been said about the subject since 2006, when we originally debated it. I am happy to add my contribution tonight. I have had a good read of those speeches. One thing that every single one of us in this parliament agrees on is that members of parliament should operate with honesty and integrity at all times. What we obviously do not agree on tonight and on previous occasions is what penalties should apply to a member of parliament if they happen to tell a lie, to tell an untruth, in this place. On our side of parliament the government believes that the existing sanctions are sufficient. The previous member talked about those existing sanctions, and they are very clear. If someone is deemed to have lied to parliament they will be referred to the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! I ask you not to use the word ‘lie’, please. Ms SPENCE: Absolutely. If the minister intentionally tells an untruth in this parliament, under the Westminster system that minister is obliged to resign from the ministry. If members are seen to do the wrong thing in this place, they are also judged by their peers, the media and, of course, the Queensland public at large every three years in an election. Our side of politics believes that those existing sanctions are sufficient. We do not have to impose criminal penalties and jail sentences for a misdemeanour such as telling an untruth in this parliament. 2978 Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 28 Oct 2009

As members of parliament we sit here day in, day out formulating laws with penalties that cover all manner of offences in this state from drink-driving to more serious offences. The Queensland public would honestly question whether a seven-year prison sentence is truly something they want to see imposed on someone for telling an untruth. If we asked people out there in the general public that question, they would say that that is not an offence that warrants the sentence. The people of Queensland, of course, are not stupid. When we ask them to think about those things, of course they will say that you do not lock people up for that kind of matter. Fundamentally, that is the only difference between the two sides of this debate, as it has been on previous occasions. Should someone be jailed for seven years for telling an untruth in this House? We say they should not. Does it happen in any other parliament? No, it does not. It does not happen in the House of Representatives or the Senate; it does not happen in any other state parliament in Australia; it does not happen in England in the Westminster system. It would be something unique to Queensland and something that this side of politics believes is unnecessary. I am not going to speak for a long time in this debate, because I think so much has been said. We have even reached the low point of a lame poem being included here tonight. I see that we do have a long speaking list and it is likely to be a late evening. I would remind people that this is something that has been debated in the past—something about which we do not need to hear more tedious repetition tonight. Queenslanders, having considered this matter on two previous occasions when it has received a lot of media attention, will agree with our side of politics that the existing sanctions that are imposed on members of parliament who inadvertently—or even knowingly—tell an untruth in this place will suffice. Mr POWELL (Glass House—LNP) (8.05 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill. Many of my colleagues have already addressed—and many more will—the specific ramifications and examples of the abuse of relevant clauses of the current Criminal Code. I would like to focus more on the broader social consequences and the implications of having one rule for parliamentarians and one rule for the broader public. Taryn, my wife, and I work extremely hard to ensure that our children are growing up fully appreciating the negative consequences of giving false evidence. We are using the experiences of our own childhoods in trying to instil the traits of honesty and integrity in our children. My parents certainly taught me. I understood that when I knowingly gave false evidence to them I was punished. On one particular occasion the punishment dispensed by my parents was quite substantial, and rightly so; the crime was quite significant and compounded by the fact that I knowingly gave false evidence. But I learned my lesson. I must admit that I was somewhat gobsmacked to discover that knowingly giving false evidence in this esteemed House is not treated as the crime it is. Intrigued, I went in search of the justification for the introduction of this baffling piece of legislation which was introduced back in 2006. I refer to the explanatory notes for the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 2006. The notes state— Section 57 of the Criminal Code provides that any person who knowingly gives false evidence, in the course of an examination before the Legislative Assembly or a committee of the Legislative Assembly, is guilty of a crime and is liable to seven years imprisonment. The Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 provides that the same behaviour is contempt of Parliament, to be dealt with by the Parliament. The confusion caused by these contradictory processes needs to be rectified. Section 57 of the Criminal Code is also inconsistent with the fundamental tenet of the Westminster system, embodied in section 8 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001, that debates or proceedings in Parliament can not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of the Parliament. A criminal provision such as section 57, which allows the possibility of the prosecution of a Member for what the Member says in the House, is inconsistent with the principle established by Article 9 of the Bill of Rights (1688). So there is a discrepancy between the Criminal Code and the Parliament of Queensland Act. Let us see how we overcame that, and again I refer to the 2006 explanatory notes. They state— The Bill repeals section 57 of the Criminal Code to ensure that the principle inherent in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights (1688) is preserved and reinforced. For Members, this will bring Queensland into line with the position in the House of Commons, the Commonwealth Houses of Parliament and the Parliaments of other States and Territories. For non-Members, the position will be the same as for the Commonwealth Houses of Parliament. Members and non-Members will remain liable to be dealt with for contempt of Parliament under the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001. There is a novel approach: the 2006 amendments were justified on the basis that there was confusion between the Criminal Code and the Parliament of Queensland Act. So what do we do? We dumb down the Criminal Code so the parliamentarians are treated differently from the broader community. I thought this was a Smart State. I thought the idea was to smarten up, not dumb down. Quite frankly, I do not care if the House of Commons, the Commonwealth and other states have these amendments in the Criminal Code. Let us set a new benchmark. To knowingly give false evidence is a crime, and it is time we were treated the same as any other Queenslander, which is why I support this bill. As the Leader of the Opposition said in his second reading speech— This Bill makes it clear that any member in this House and anyone else appearing before it, if you deliberately provide false evidence to parliament or one of its committees you commit a crime. 28 Oct 2009 Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2979

The Leader of the Opposition continued— It’s now up to this Premier and her Government to support this Bill and show that they too will not tolerate providing false evidence to parliament by its members and the only way to show real honesty and integrity is to support this Bill. The Leader of the Opposition concluded, and I concur— This is a test of honesty, a step closer to restoring faith in the process of parliament and a vital step to proving to the people of Queensland the truth truly does exist in parliament. At the end of the day, how could I look my constituents in the eye knowing that I would not be punished in the same way they would be if I knowingly gave false evidence? How could I look my family and friends in the eye? How could I look at my wife, my sons and my daughters knowing that they would be treated differently from me? It is simply not good enough. It is time to get smart, set a new benchmark and restore honesty and integrity to this fine establishment. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—LNP) (8.09 pm): I rise on this occasion to speak in support of the Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2009, which is part of the LNP’s dedicated campaign to return to this parliament the integrity so richly befitting our legislature. In one of the most blatant acts of nepotism ever undertaken, I dare say, in December 2005 this Labor government moved to protect the former member for Sandgate from criminal penalty. The Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Surfers Paradise, has taken up the crusade from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Southern Downs, who first moved to return voracity, honesty and truthfulness to our parliamentary system in August last year. I find it difficult to believe that the Labor government has the temerity to find itself above the drafter of our Criminal Code, Sir Samuel Griffith, whose vision and foresight established some 100 years of integrity of this parliament. It seems that with just one rushed motion and a subsequent bill this government has snatched away the probity and the dignity of the parliament. Swiftly, Labor used this place to put an individual, one of its own, on trial and passed judgement, which was a broadly unconstitutional move for the parliament. Interventions such as that interfere in the normal process of justice and smack of double standards: one for politicians and another for the general public. The arrogance of this Labor government knows no bounds. As I look about this House, I note that a number of Labor members who voted for this disgraceful legislation are still here: the Gold Coast members for Broadwater, Burleigh, Albert, who was a minister, and Southport, who is now a minister, all voted for this appalling determination. Mr Lawlor: Excuse me, I was not here. You are misleading the parliament. Mrs STUCKEY: I withdraw the mention of the member for Southport. Mr Lawlor: I wasn’t here; you told a lie. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! The honourable member will resume her seat. Will the minister please withdraw that inference? Mr Lawlor: I withdraw. Mrs STUCKEY: As I said, I withdraw any mention of the member for Southport. Every other Labor clone did vote, and last time, when I tried to name and shame them all, one objected. Can members believe it? They objected to being named for voting for something that they supposedly believed in. Cowards indeed! They can dish it out but they cannot take it back. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I find the tone of the language is intemperate and unparliamentary. I ask you withdraw the word ‘coward’. Mrs STUCKEY: I withdraw the word ‘coward’. May I continue? Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will wait for the House to come to order. Mrs STUCKEY: I wish to reiterate some comments I made on 9 December 2005 when sections 56, 57 and 58 were stripped from our Criminal Code, along with the measure of accountability and integrity this parliament enjoyed. I stated— I place on record how truly uncomfortable I feel about what is happening here ... I do not want to be seen as one of the politicians who besmirched the reputation of the parliamentary system of Queensland by supporting this cossetted manner of dealing with this situation under parliamentary privilege. Of course, this was not simply a protection but a sanction for Gordon Nuttall. Hearing the following glowing references from prominent members of this House, one could be forgiven for thinking that the dishonourable former member for Sandgate was the Messiah. Hansard of 9 December 2005 reads like a grand retirement speech for one of their own. For the benefit of the House I tender the following examples of lustrous comments of support for those who told untruths in parliament. The honourable member for Lytton and the current Deputy Premier, the then Minister for Transport and Main Roads, despite the CMC’s finding, despite the questionable purpose of wiping Nuttall’s slate clean and despite all sense and reason, chose to inform this House of the following— I know the member for Sandgate well and I believe that he is a good and honest man. 2980 Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 28 Oct 2009

The former member for Mulgrave, Warren Pitt, provided a glowing personal testimony. He stated— I stand here today and attest to the good character of the member for Sandgate, a character which those opposite have sought to tarnish for their own crude political ends over a period of months in this chamber. I have always respected the integrity of the member for Sandgate, Gordon Nuttall. I hold that view now, and I will continue to hold that view into the future. Perhaps we can ask the current member for Mulgrave if his dad still holds that view and respects the integrity of a man now found guilty of telling untruths and then taking corrupt payments. The present Leader of the House and former Minister for Police and Corrective Services, who is known to leap to the defence of her Labor mates regardless of their sins, stated— I have read the CMC report and I say with the greatest respect to the CMC that I believe it is a flawed document. It has turned out that the real flaw was in her own judgement. The public works minister further gilded the lily, saying of Nuttall that ‘he was noble enough, gracious enough and humble enough to stand in this parliament and apologise’. I have to say that I have not heard such delicate words spill from the lips of the minister since, although we have all heard plenty of colourful language from him. Tonight we heard him attack the character of the honourable member for Kawana. The Premier really pushed the envelope, stating— For those of us who are colleagues of the member for Sandgate, for those of us who have worked with him, for those of us who have sat with him around a cabinet table and know him to be a decent man—a man of integrity—this will not be easy. The then Deputy Premier and now current Premier believed him to be a man of integrity and jumped at the chance to protect him, just as her government will undoubtedly vote down this bill and the principles for which it stands. The Labor government has purged from our parliamentary system all dignity and integrity and it has no intention of restoring it. Only five or six government speakers have bothered to put their names on the speaking list. We in the LNP are determined to bring that dignity and integrity back. In August last year the opposition introduced a similar bill into the House and in December last year the government voted to trample into the carpet on the floor of the House all principles of candour, forthrightness and probity in seeking to protect one of its own. Other examples of the lack of integrity rooted deeply in this government are ministers’ inability to manage their own departments and the unwillingness to communicate all of the facts. I use the recent incident with regard to asbestos handling at the Caningeraba State School to highlight my case in regard to this bill. A Workplace Health and Safety Queensland investigation that reported on the incident at Caningeraba on 3 June was completed on 22 July 2009. It revealed that a meeting between QBuild and Workplace Health and Safety Queensland took place on 12 June 2009. At the meeting QBuild advised that it conducted an investigation into this matter and identified noncompliance with its own policies and procedures. Procedural failures documented in this investigation report included terms of notification, access to the school’s asbestos register, access permits generally and work method statements. That is all pretty serious stuff indeed. On 16 June this year I asked the Minister for Public Works about asbestos mishandling and he informed the parliament that he had not seen any evidence at that time. On 17 June 2009, during the adjournment debate, I tabled documents proving the mishandling of asbestos at the school. The saga continued and almost three months later, on 2 September, I asked the minister how he could ‘continue to claim that he treats asbestos seriously when he has failed to report back to this House the result of the full and proper inquiry he requested’. The minister replied— The fact is that the allegations—and they are allegations—are being tested by another department, not by me. Surely the minister knew the findings? Considering that QBuild identified noncompliances on 12 June and the report was completed on 22 July 2009, either the minister did not take this issue of asbestos at our schools seriously, because if he had he would have read the report, or perhaps he did not tell the whole truth. Miraculously, on 17 September the minister announced in a solemn manner, as he should, that incorrect procedures took place at Caningeraba and he tabled the QBuild report, a letter from the Attorney-General and the Workplace Health and Safety Queensland investigation report. Curiously, an undated letter from the Attorney-General, which staff have confirmed was posted on 3 September—one day after I asked a question without notice on this issue—reveals the admission of failures. This letter was accompanied by a Workplace Health and Safety Queensland investigation report dated 4 September. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! Honourable member, I have given you a good go here this evening, but I do ask you now to return to the provisions of the bill currently before the House. Mrs STUCKEY: When we are discussing honesty and integrity in this place, I have to say that the whole sorry saga I have just related does leave a cloud of uncertainty as to what the minister did know. I support the Leader of the Opposition’s bill to restore a glow of honour and integrity to this place. After all, we owe it to the good people of Queensland. They have seen enough from this government. 28 Oct 2009 Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2981

Mr CRANDON (Coomera—LNP) (8.20 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate and speak in support of the Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2009, which is intended to amend the Criminal Code to make it an offence to give false evidence before parliament. Reading the background to what occurred has been fascinating to say the least. The Gold Coast Bulletin wrote— The Beattie government has passed legislation giving life to what shall be known as ‘Nuttall’s Law’, which grants governments the right to lie with impunity. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr Wettenhall: How many times do they have to be told? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Barron River will resume his seat if he wishes to interject. Member for Coomera, resume your seat please. The Speaker did put out a statement this morning in regard to the use of the word ‘lie’. I ask you to refrain from using that word, even if you are quoting an article from the paper. The statement that the Speaker made this morning was quite explicit, and I would refer you to it. Mr CRANDON: It continues— Nuttall’s Law represents one of the low points in Queensland’s history, shamefully brought about by (the) Attorney-General. And it goes on. Why? Gordon Nuttall told intentional untruths to a budget estimates committee. The current Attorney-General argues that section 57 is not needed. He argues that what Nuttall did was okay. What Nuttall did then and what he was later found to be guilty of is not okay. Ask any fair- minded— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Honourable member, resume your seat please. I have already made a ruling on this not 10 minutes ago in regard to sub judice. These matters are before the court. I ask you to refrain from using aspects of this argument in the debate this evening. You have the call. Mr CRANDON: Ask any fair-minded man or woman, ordinary citizens in this great state, if they believe these actions are okay. The short answer is the same as the long answer—no. This parliament has a reputation. This 53rd Parliament is the parliament that was formed based on sleight of hand, based on story telling. Fair-minded people gave this Premier and Treasurer the benefit of the doubt. They said, ‘Okay, let’s give Premier Bligh a chance to prove herself,’ and that is exactly what the Premier did—prove herself. Proving sleight of hand is what was called for for Labor to win government. Then and only then did this government turn its back on these fair-minded people and sell their assets down the drain. While they were at it, it increased forward debt projections to an incredible $85 billion; debt our children will not pay off. It is time for this parliament to stand up for what is right and prove to the people of Queensland that it does have scruples, that it is able to restore respect, that it is capable of restoring accountable government to the state of Queensland. It is not acceptable to knowingly deceive this parliament. To knowingly deceive is to have the intention of swaying a decision in a particular way, in a way that suits the deceiver. This parliament deserves to make its decisions on honest testimony, not on deceit. If government members have any desire to ensure that future decisions are based on truth in testimony, they have no choice but to vote to reinstate section 57. To not vote to reinstate section 57 is to tell the fair-minded people of Queensland that they want the option to tell an untruth when it suits them. The Minister for Public Works talked about telling an untruth not being worthy of penalty. Would that not depend on what the untruth was about—a big deception or a little deception, as we would talk to our children about? I put it to the House that a big deception would be along the lines of that which we have talked about in this parliament before and cannot talk about today—and that is one that amounts to a jail sentence for someone. That is a big lie and that is the sort of lie that we have talked about prosecuting with this section. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Honourable member, resume your seat. I have already warned you about the use of that word here this evening. I will not warn you again. Withdraw the comment and continue. Mr CRANDON: I withdraw the comment. I commend the bill to the House and urge those opposite to do the right thing by the people of Queensland—cross the floor and vote for what is right. I seek clarification, if I may, Mr Deputy Speaker. I note that I inadvertently said the wrong word. I note also that my colleague the member for Beaudesert in a poem used that very same word. Each time we used that word we were both pulled up and corrected and told to withdraw. On the other hand, the Minister for Public Works used that word and the record will show that that word was used and the Minister for Public Works was not pulled up. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seat. Your comments are a reflection on the chair. I ask you to withdraw. Mr CRANDON: I withdraw the comments. I am seeking clarification, however, from the chair. 2982 Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 28 Oct 2009

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You can continue but I have made my ruling. The ruling I think is pretty clear. You have the call. Mr CRANDON: I will say one last word then. The Leader of the House managed to use the word twice before being pulled up. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your comments are a reflection on the chair. They are unparliamentary. I ask you to withdraw. Mr CRANDON: I withdraw the comments. Mr EMERSON (Indooroopilly—LNP) (8.26 pm): I rise today to contribute to the debate on the Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill. This bill takes a significant step towards restoring open, transparent and accountable government in Queensland, and I commend the Leader of the Opposition for introducing it. This government’s record of dishonesty and cronyism is a disgrace. On Sunday, 27 September 2009, the Sunday Mail reported, ‘Four out of every five Queenslanders don’t trust Premier Anna Bligh.’ The Courier-Mail called it ‘a crisis of confidence in the integrity of public administration in the state’, while rolling off a list of independent public figures criticising this government—Tony Fitzgerald, Robert Needham, Neil Laurie and Gary Crooke. Every day in Queensland there is a new headline shaming this government. This bill proposes to introduce some accountability with just two small but effective provisions. The first of these is to reintroduce the offence of giving false evidence to parliament or one of its committees. This provision was repealed in 2006 by the Labor government, seeking to save one of its own from being prosecuted under it. It is a provision that was originally inserted into the Criminal Code by Samuel Griffith himself and the Labor government removed it after over 100 years just because one of its own needed saving. The government deliberately forced a vote to repeal it during the last sitting, before the budget was brought down and estimate committee hearings were to begin. It could not risk being found out. The circumstances which occurred in the lead-up to the repeal of this section are direct evidence of why it should be reintroduced. Former Premier Beattie kept Gordon Nuttall in his cabinet even after the Davies report had found Nuttall’s conduct to be ‘misleading, unreasonable and careless’. Nuttall was only removed from the Beattie ministry after a CMC report had found him to have misled the committee. He was not asked to step down; he resigned. This is an inequitable fate when compared to that of public servants who gave evidence alongside him. They were just sacked. Parliament was not recalled to save them. They told the truth and they were sacked. Former Premier Beattie never wavered in his continued support of the minister who misled this House and who misled the Queensland people. It took the opposition to report the matter to the police, which led to the CMC inquiry even being conducted in the first place. On 9 December 2005, parliament was recalled to consider the CMC’s report. Instead of referring it to an independent authority, such as the DPP, or using the processes of parliament by referring it to the privileges committee first, this government chose to exonerate one of its own and it did so with its arrogant majority on purely party lines. Despite the Premier’s office having been found out altering documents so it looked like the Premier did not support and condone Gordon Nuttall, Hansard from this day is there for all Queenslanders to read. In seconding the motion to exonerate Gordon Nuttall, the member for South Brisbane, now the Premier, remarked— ... we are here today in rare and unusual circumstances. These are circumstances without precedent. Today we all enter an area we have not before traversed, nor indeed has any other Westminster parliament traversed this terrain. The Premier recognised the gravity of the situation, yet she voted to exonerate him. She also described him as ‘a decent man—a man of integrity’ in the face of the report’s findings. These remarks are indicative of what the Premier’s benchmarks for decency and integrity are—a worrying sign for Queenslanders. In her speech to the House on that day the member for Ipswich said that she did not think members of the community should face criminal proceedings for misleading parliamentary committees as many people, in her experience, misunderstood questions or were trying to spin her a line. Her performance as a minister indicates that, yes, indeed, some MPs do misunderstand questions. To me this suggests more so that the committee process has become a mockery and this government is responsible. Instead of removing section 57 because people do not understand questions or try to slant their answers in their favour, we should be educating them on the importance of the committee process. It is no wonder the public’s opinion of parliamentary committees and the parliament has degenerated. This bill also proposes to amend section 47 of the Parliament of Queensland Act so that what happened in 2005—voting on party lines to save one’s mates—cannot happen again no matter who is in government. I repeat: no matter who is in government. It removes the ability for the giving of false evidence to be dealt with as a contempt of parliament so that it can only be dealt with as a criminal proceeding. The ability to have an instance of giving false evidence dealt with by parliament has been and still is a get-out-of-jail-free card for this government, which treats its privileged position as little more 28 Oct 2009 Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2983 than a board game, except that in its version of the game the objective is not to own assets; it is to sell them off. The public servants who gave evidence alongside Gordon Nuttall did not have this get-out-of- jail-free card, nor should any person. While proclaiming to be acting openly, transparently and accountably, members of the government, many of whom are still in this House today, voted to exonerate Nuttall for his deceptive conduct. The member for Moggill in his speech to the House on that day asked us to— Imagine a government that determines criminal accusations against its own members and votes them down along party lines. Welcome to the Orwellian world of the Beattie government. The member for Southern Downs said that it should be ‘trial by jury, not trial by mates’. Government members will assert that the proposed legislation defies Westminster traditions and impinges on the separation of powers. It does not do either of these things. The Queensland parliament has a rich, proud history in the traditions of Westminster, but generally Westminster parliaments have an upper house or some other mechanism of accountability. By the very nature of a Westminster parliament, the government is formed by the majority in the lower house so will always control that house until it is no longer the government. There is a need for some other mechanism, but no such mechanism exists for this government. This bill restores some separation of powers to our system. Due to the government’s control of this House and the executive, it is even more imperative that judicial proceedings are bestowed upon the judiciary, who are far more independent and far more educated to try such cases. Furthermore, it re-establishes the rule of law so that the laws of this parliament apply equally to every Queenslander, whether they are a member of parliament or a member of the Labor Party or not. The government’s green paper on integrity and accountability names a number of extraparliamentary bodies designed to be the crux of the integrity and accountability framework. As commentators rightly point out, none of these are democratic bodies; they are all appointed by the executive government. How can they foster integrity and accountability when everybody’s job is on the line if they tell the truth? It was only days ago that another former policy adviser, Scott Patterson, told Queenslanders that he lost his job because he refused to lie to the CMC. Mr HOOLIHAN: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. There is a private member’s bill tabled today which deals with the matter of Scott Patterson. I would suggest that the current argument is anticipation of debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! There is no point of order, but I would ask the member to withdraw the comments in relation to the word which has been asked to be withdrawn several times tonight. Mr EMERSON: I withdraw. Further, as the roles of these bodies are defined by the laws of this parliament, they need to have jurisdiction before they enter the arena and they can only respond when an incident is reported. More preventive, proactive measures to ensure integrity and accountability are needed. The Clerk of the Parliament in his submission to the government’s green paper spoke of ‘the growth of a culture that either accepts, ignores or is fearful of reporting unethical conduct’. He also said that the political culture that has grown in Queensland is, in many respects, worse than the weaknesses in institutions discussed in the Fitzgerald report. This culture is being propelled by this government and it needs to stop. The law needs to change to be able to hold this government to account. The Premier continually strikes out the possibility of calling a royal commission. She says that we should simply refer it to the CMC, where the government will heavy-weight its staff into misleading the inquiry. This is an unacceptable alternative, as the Clerk of the Parliament says in his submission. The CMC is no substitute for a proper functioning parliament. This bill is a step in that direction, and the government has nothing to fear if it intends to only give truthful answers to questions. I urge all members to vote for this bill and give Queenslanders some hope and faith in the integrity and accountability of what has so far been an untrustworthy government. Ms DAVIS (Aspley—LNP) (8.37 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2009. As many in this place know, I mainly speak about those matters which directly affect my local community, and this bill does because it goes to the very heart of how electors wish to be governed and their wish to trust that the government is focused on the interests of ordinary Queenslanders. We need to ensure politicians tell the truth in the people’s parliament. This is an important part of valuing those we represent. Perhaps unlike many in the broader community, I have a respect for the political process and I regard public service and public representation as a worthy pursuit. I think most in this House commence their political careers with the right intentions. Honesty and integrity are expected of every politician in this parliament and that is the reason for this bill—to restore that honesty and trust that the people of Queensland expect and deserve. 2984 Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 28 Oct 2009

Sadly, though, when many people in my community talk about trust when describing the current Labor government they say, ‘You can’t trust this government. You can’t trust them to listen to our concerns. Rather, they listen to the concerns of their Labor mates.’ These trust issues are germane to this bill because if there is one place you should be able to trust what politicians say it is in the parliament. If we cannot pass a bill to restore lying in parliament to the Criminal Code, how can we expect people to trust anything we say? This is a bill for an act to amend the Criminal Code to provide for the offence of giving false evidence before parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Aspley, I think you have actually used the word we were just talking about a short time ago. I ask you to withdraw that word. Ms DAVIS: I withdraw. The bill also amends the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 to ensure that acts of contempt of parliament that amount to providing false evidence are prosecuted under the code offence. The offence can be committed by an elected member or any other person and it is a crime punishable by seven years imprisonment. The people within my electorate might wonder why this bill and its associated punishment is necessary, and why on our side we have to even talk about restoring honesty and integrity to the Queensland parliament. Sadly, the notion of telling the truth, especially in parliament, should not be a novel or controversial matter. However, under this government it is something that cannot be trusted in, but rather needs to be insisted upon in the law. The integrity and honesty that people in my electorate expect of members of parliament was destroyed in 2006 by the Bligh government when it used its numbers to effectively decriminalise the offence of providing false evidence to parliament or its committees. The removal of this offence in the wake of one of their own admitting a mistruth to a parliamentary committee was an open invitation to deceit and mistruths. Mark Twain once said that actions speak louder than words but not nearly as often. The action of this government was to open the door to dishonesty. Do not listen to what Labor says; look at what it does. I recognise that many on the Labor side are honest people and they probably squirm that the very reason we are here is that their executive can no longer be trusted and their executive directed them to abolish laws to protect someone now jailed for corruption. Nonetheless, they still supported that cynical act and that reflects poorly on each of them who were here at that time. There is an old Chinese proverb that says, ‘It’s better to light a candle than curse the darkness.’ The action of the opposition is to say to people in my electorate that we are prepared to be bound by the need to tell the truth in this place. Today we are seeking to relight a candle for honesty with this bill. It is the LNP which is standing up for truth in the political process and it is the Labor side opposing it. In considering the Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill it was important for me to look at the background. The case of the former member for Sandgate and the Beattie and Bligh cover-up have been mentioned by several of my colleagues. However, it is the straw that broke the camel’s back. Character and integrity go beyond these walls, and if you will not be bound to the truth in this place how can people trust you outside of this place? Indeed, at my community corners, this Labor breach of trust comes up routinely as a matter of dissatisfaction. That is what this bill seeks to do—improve the Criminal Code so that those in this place can no longer deliberately mislead, thereby restoring some sadly lost credibility with the Queensland community. While this bill cannot achieve the impossible and make this government honest, it is a very good start to the process of restoring trust. The upshot is that people in Aspley should be able to trust their government to do the right thing but currently they cannot. In drawing my contribution to a close, it is worth noting that the need to put truth in parliament in the Criminal Code to deter mistruths in this place was done by Sir Samuel Griffith. Regrettably, one of our constitutional fathers got rolled by Labor to protect Gordon Nuttall. I support the Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2009 not just because we need to draw a line but because we have to seek to leave this place better than when we found it. I support this bill not just because it forces the Bligh Labor government to tell the truth—perhaps a lost cause—but perhaps it reminds all politicians to do so. As the Leader of the Opposition said, the Queensland opposition takes honesty and integrity in parliament very seriously. By all our members supporting this bill they have put themselves on notice and are willing to continue to be honest and forthright without fear. That this bill is even necessary is nothing short of a disgrace, but that is the political environment this government has created. For my part, I am happy to draw a line in the sand, and to that end I support this important piece of legislation. Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Health) (8.43 pm): This bill, disingenuously named the Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill, is not honest and it does not demonstrate integrity. If it were an honest bill its title would reflect the fact that it has no application or relevance to the general sittings of parliament or even to members of parliamentary committees. If the bill had any integrity it would cover all proceedings in this House and all members of this House including the opposition and the honourable member who just spoke—and it does not. 28 Oct 2009 Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2985

The opposition claims this bill will outlaw deception in parliament. It would not. The bill would have no application to what any member might say in this debate or in any proceedings in this chamber. It would have no application to statements made while asking questions in question time or during matters of public importance or personal explanations. It would not apply to dishonest reports, dishonest questions or even to dishonest statements made by members of estimates committees. Even if this bill were passed, the member for Callide could still come into this place and continue his acknowledged practice of making false allegations—I will use my words appropriately—as a tactic. I quote from a report of the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, which states— A subsequent article in The Courier Mail on 11 March 2002, stated that the Member for Callide had ‘refused to apologise for falsely claiming Premier Peter Beattie’s brother was linked to a company which benefited from a taxpayer-funded assistance package. Mr Hopper interjected. Mr LUCAS: You lied to the electorate about what party you were running for. The article also stated— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! Please withdraw that, Deputy Premier. Mr LUCAS: I withdraw. The report continues— The article also stated that Mr Seeney had claimed he made the false allegation as a ‘tactic’ to force the Government to release information ... It just goes on and on. If you had amended the law in the way that you said you were doing it— and you were not—we would have a CMC investigation, not a privileges investigation of the member for Callide, but an investigation on the prima facie case and then a potential prosecution. That is how you think parliament should regulate its affairs. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Deputy Premier, please direct your comments through the chair. Mr LUCAS: This bill would do nothing to deal with any of that. The bill is a deception on the people of Queensland for pretending to be about honesty and integrity in the parliament. The biggest disgrace of the lot are the lawyers in this chamber on the opposite side of the House who clearly know that this is ridiculous. They clearly know that a provision in the Criminal Code that had not been used in 100 years was redundant because it was not an appropriate operation for the way that parliament controls its proceedings. The Beattie government removed these provisions from the Criminal Code because they have no place and add no value in our modern parliament. Deliberately misleading in parliament is a serious misdemeanour. It is just as serious when the House is sitting as a whole as it is when a parliament is conducting a hearing, and on none of these three occasions have you sought to amend that. Serious sanctions should be applied to any member who misleads the House, and that sanction should be delivered through the time-honoured Westminster tradition. The House should deal with its members. This issue goes beyond the current government or the life of the previous governments. Indeed, what is at the heart of this debate is a core principle of Westminster democratic conventions. That is the position in New South Wales, Victoria and the other states, and that is the position in the Australian parliament. It was the position in the Australian parliament when the Liberals and Nationals were in charge of that place. Where were you on the policy committee of your party moving that your federal colleagues introduce this legislation? It shows the humbugs that you are. It was good enough for John Howard, Malcolm Turnbull, Barnaby Joyce and poor old Peter Dutton. When they supported their own federal parliament dealing with these matters as matters of privilege rather than through the courts, they received not one word of criticism from those opposite. When John Howard went to the last election endorsed by members opposite he did not have in his platform the introduction of provisions like these, nor did he during the other five elections where he led the Liberal Party. This bill is merely a deception. Again and again we see those opposite relying on a cheap political ploy that adds no value to the honesty or integrity of the House and its members. As I said, they did not even have the consistency to make it apply to the chamber. We only have to see the contributions to this debate from members opposite to see what this bill is really about. Take the member for Caloundra, advisedly a lawyer, I understand, whose speech made it crystal clear that the bill is not about genuine reform of the parliamentary system or improving honesty and integrity. Rather, this bill is all about the opposition trying to fight political battles of years gone by and settling old scores in the most base political way. I just love the irony of ‘Mr Pensioner Rip-off’ himself lecturing the House on integrity. The member for Caloundra and all those opposite, as usual, have very short memories. They claim to promote honesty and integrity, but when it comes to dishonesty they have form. Just look to the matter of the former member for Beaudesert, Kevin Lingard, as a reminder to those opposite. It was reported in the Courier-Mail on 19 November 1997 that in testimony before the Anti-Discrimination Commission under oath Mr Lingard was asked, ‘What is a dorothy dixer?’ Mr Lingard said, ‘I don’t understand what a dorothy dixer is.’ He said this under oath. At the time he had been a member of parliament for 14 years including two years as Speaker. As if anyone in this place does not know what a dorothy dixer is, let alone a former Speaker. We only need to look at the Hansard of 23 June 1994 on page 8566 where Mr Lingard said— Our committee sat till 12 o’clock on a Friday night. Government members should make their Dorothy Dix questions less obvious. Dorothy Dix questions were clearly asked. 2986 Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 28 Oct 2009

If hundreds of years of parliamentary privilege had been waived to allow the parliamentary statement of 24 June 1994 to be led against him in a tribunal where he is under oath, it is not a giant leap to see a case of rolled gold perjury. I make this point, not to single out Mr Lingard or that particular set of circumstances, but to say to the member for Caloundra that, in his deepest dreams when he thinks that one day he might be on this side of the chamber, boy oh boy, make the amendments, make them apply to the chamber and we will see the first one to line up for the perjury charge, the former member for Beaudesert. Do not hold your breath, though, because they would never do it and their parliamentary colleagues federally never did it because it is humbug and it is ridiculous. The point is that those opposite are so caught up in their motivation for cheap political ploys that they have given no serious consideration to the democratic principles that they are offending or the examples of inconsistencies and questionable statements from their own side. Why do they not seek to amend the bill of rights as well to take that protection away from Lingard? We also note that the member for Callide made false allegations against members as a tactic and bragged about doing that. Guess what? The amendments in the bill would never have covered him. The opposition has introduced this bill three times, but it would never have covered him. The opposition has form. It is all for transparency and accountability, except when it relates to it. In the fine tradition of conservative politics, on 29 September this year at the Press Club Clive Palmer defended a long line of corrupt ex-National Party ministers. He said that Geoff Muntz, who was convicted and jailed for corruption, was a real hero of this state and that he was not corrupt. Leisha Harvey was convicted and jailed for using a government credit card for personal expenses. Clive said that she was a nice person—basically a housewife who had gone into politics and then gone to jail. Some of those people are still around. Clive is still lurking around the back rooms of the LNP. The member for Southern Downs described Joh Bjelke-Petersen as a great man—Queensland’s greatest. He claimed that Joh cherished the Westminster principles. He is the guy who would have gone down on a majority verdict on perjury had the law in Queensland been like it was in other places. The opposition is so brazen, so bald faced that, notwithstanding what Hinze and Bjelke-Petersen did and after knowing what they did, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition still describes Joh Bjelke- Petersen as a touchstone for his values—a great man—as similarly does the member for Warrego. How can the opposition stand in this House and claim to care about honesty and integrity in public life when it continues to defend, even idolise, those who demonstrated the very essence of corruption? How dare the opposition stand in this place and try to ignore centuries of Westminster parliamentary tradition, all for its gutter political point-scoring? This opposition is so transparently cynical that it is seeking to amend the law that deals only with activities in parliament that will not catch out their own behaviour in the parliamentary chamber itself. The opposition will not see people like their own Kev Lingard on a rolled-gold perjury charge because they lack the nous to draft something even-handed, even if it is wrongheaded. Mr HOPPER (Condamine—LNP) (8.52 pm): You should not throw stones if you live in glass houses. There have been times in my life when I have been booked for speeding, but I did remember that I was driving. I know a lot of people who have driven through red lights and they certainly remember that they were driving at the time and did not try to put it on to someone else. And only my family lives in my house. I do not put any other people at my address, not like the member for Lytton, whose disgraceful contribution we have just heard in which he slurred members of the opposition. There are sanctions in this parliament. This system of parliament works very well. But the government had to legalise the telling of untruths. That is why our leader, the honourable member for Surfers Paradise, has introduced this amending legislation—to try to reverse the disgusting decision that was made a few years ago. I believe this House is run very well. There is a sanctity within this parliament that we should all respect. How often do we see that broken down? It is when we see a weak minister and we see the Leader of the House shut down debate on legislation so that that weak minister does not face the scrutiny of the clauses of the bill they have introduced because, if they did, they know that they would get into trouble. A couple of sittings ago the member for Hinchinbrook issued a press release saying that debate was going to be shut down on a bill introduced by the minister for environment. What happened? The next minute the Leader of the House came into this place and shut down debate on the bill, because of that weak minister sitting on the government benches. Tonight, we have heard contributions from ministers who should hang their heads in shame. To be allowed to be untruthful is a slur on the sanctity of this chamber. We saw the member for Rockhampton stand in this place and talk about his integrity and honesty. Yet we interjected against him one time when he had his groupies who used to support him. There were powerful ministers over there then and the minister had his following, he had his groupies. He was very proud then to make statements and they would all cheer him on. One morning, we stirred him up so much that he accused the member for Warrego of owing bookmakers money. That was a blatant, absolute, misleading of the House and was unacceptable. Yet, tonight we see him stand here like an angel portraying the honesty and integrity of this place. We have just heard the disgraceful contribution by the member for Lytton, who slurred the member for Callide. 28 Oct 2009 Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2987

This legislation was introduced into this House to try to strengthen the House and clean it up. We have parliamentary privilege that covers us so that we can expose things in this chamber. There is a process in this House that is good. We do not see the need for that legislation to have been introduced. So, once again, we have moved an amendment to it. This legislation was introduced to protect a Labor mate. That is what that legislation was brought in for. This is simply arrogant. Mr Johnson: The judicial system found him guilty. Mr HOPPER: Absolutely. I will take that interjection from the member for Gregory. The judicial system found the minister guilty. There are 89 members elected to this House, which is the engine room of Queensland. You have to have integrity to be a member of this chamber. If you mislead a court or tell an untruth in a court of law, the penalties are severe. But this arrogant government thinks it can be more powerful than that and bring in legislation to cover its mates so that if such a situation arose again, there will be no penalties involved. That is simply unacceptable. That is why the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Surfers Paradise, has introduced this bill. Currently, members can knowingly deceive this chamber and get away with it. This legislation is about openness and accountability. I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Surfers Paradise, on bringing in this legislation. I hope this bill will be supported tonight. Mr SORENSEN (Hervey Bay—LNP) (8.57 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2009, which was introduced by my colleague the Leader of the Opposition, John-Paul Langbroek. I appeal to this House to bring back honesty and integrity to this place and to support the need for accountability from its members. Back in 2006, the Attorney-General introduced a bill to repeal section 57 of the Criminal Code and to remove the ability to hold accountable those members who would knowingly mislead the Legislative Assembly or a committee of the Legislative Assembly. The decision to repeal sections 56, 57 and 58 of the Criminal Code can only be viewed as a self-serving one—self-serving to the Labor government of the day. The repeal of section 57 of the Criminal Code in particular was to put a teflon coat on a former member, however brief it was. It was not long enough. The Premier at the time who made that decision has definitely left this place, although at the time he had the absolute support of the current Premier. Irrespective of the reasons this section was repealed, the horse has bolted. We need to prove that we are not scared to be accountable when undergoing examination in this assembly or its committees. For those parliamentary members on both sides who look at Queensland governance and politics as it is today, just briefly, with a bipartisan view, and for those members who pride themselves on their honesty and integrity without fear, they will support this amendment. The amendment is important and is derived from common sense to bring back into line other acts, such as the Parliament of Queensland Act sections 36(b) and (c) and section 37, to ensure that contempt of parliament equates to providing false evidence and can only be dealt with under the Criminal Code. Under the Criminal Code, members who knowingly present false and misleading information to parliament and its committees can face seven years imprisonment. What is wrong with that? Why is the government scared of telling the truth? Why would members prefer to give ministers the ability to mislead? When we teflon ourselves from the laws that apply to the people who we represent we create a divide in democracy and in the very institution that we took an honourable oath to serve. This parliament cannot become a dictatorship and say ‘Do as we say, not do as we do.’ The Queensland government is all about accountability. Without accountability we lose the fundamental process of governance and democracy in Queensland. We are elected by our constituents because we are upfront, straight and honest. We never go on the campaign trail saying, ‘I have a licence to mislead,’ do we? The popularity of politicians in the public eye has diminished gravely. This amendment will claw back some of the trust lost. We need to bring back the fundamental promise to Queenslanders that we will not knowingly mislead the Legislative Assembly or its committees when it comes to matters that affect the running of this state. While I support the rights, immunities and parliamentary privilege that are extended to us as members of parliament because it allows us to have robust debate, I completely oppose the current status quo—that is, the orchestrated ability to blur the lines in terms of what is represented as false evidence during parliamentary process and be considered allowable. Of course it is not allowable. Do members think for one minute that our constituents who elevated us to this position and ministerial positions in parliament give us the green light to present false and misleading evidence and stretch the truth when presenting evidence and facts to parliament that affect this state? We all know about the integrity and accountability booklet with the Queensland government badge on it that was produced in August 2009. It was sent out to all of us. It has ‘discussion paper only’ plastered across the top of the page. Okay, let us discuss it. When we get to part 2 of the Queensland Integrity and Accountability Framework, the section in respect of the Criminal Code Act 1899, it clearly outlines that if a person corruptly receives, asks to receive or attempts to receive any property or benefit of any kind for himself or herself they will face seven years jail. That is corruption. Corruption, when one 2988 Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 28 Oct 2009 looks it up, is plain and simple. Corruption is dishonesty. I quote from the Encarta Dictionary where corruption is defined as ‘immoral or dishonest, especially as shown by the exploitation of a position of power or trust for personal gain.’ Are we not in a position of power? How can we say that it is okay to knowingly present false evidence and mislead parliament and get away with it? Yet, in the same breath, if we make money and gain property from dishonesty means then we are corrupt and face jail. Does not being corrupt mean that one is dishonest in manner, action and speech? The two go hand in hand. We need to stamp out the ability to mislead. This amendment will help us do that. If one gets away with lying for long enough the dishonest amongst us will push the envelope. They will think they are bullet proof. When is this government going to set the bar to ‘honesty only’? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! You have used that word again. I will ask you to withdraw that word. Mr SORENSEN: I withdraw. Mr MALONE (Mirani—LNP) (9.07 pm): It is with some pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Surfers Paradise, which is before the House tonight, the Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill. All 89 of us represent electorates in this parliament and we should feel privileged that we have had the opportunity to do that and must respect the support we have in our electorates to be able to represent more than 30,000 people in this House. Quite frankly, what we are dealing with is the integrity of this parliament. We saw the disgraceful situation where parliament was recalled in early December 2006 to clear the way for a member of this parliament to be able to misrepresent a situation in the parliament so that he would be able to continue to represent his constituents. I think that we as a parliament, and more so given the fact that we are a unicameral parliament and do not have an upper house, have to be even more vigilant in our representation of the people. What we do in this place is very important to the people of Queensland. I think that responsibility should weigh very heavily on our shoulders. I listened intently to what the Deputy Premier of the government spoke about in this House just a little while ago. Personally, I quite strongly believe that one does not build one’s own credibility by pulling others down. I was disappointed that the Deputy Premier had to resort to trawling back through passages in Hansard for more than 10 to 15 years to find instances where he believed that there was a slight against a member of parliament. I think that is quite disgraceful. I think that he has not actually endeared himself either to this parliament or to the people who he represents. We should all be aware of the fact that we are held in reasonably high regard in our electorates. Everything that we do in this place that misrepresents the truth takes a little bit of that respect away. I believe that the bill we have before the House tonight goes some little way to restoring the integrity of the parliament and the respect that people have for members of parliament. I am reasonably sure that all members in their electorates have sat and listened to some very sad cases where grown men have cried and because they were a member of parliament and had the respect of the community, the force of 30,000-odd people supporting them, they were hopefully able to help that person out. That is a huge responsibility. It is a huge privilege to be able to do that. We should do whatever we can on both sides of the House to make this place a better place. I think that the legislation before the House tonight goes some way towards that. I am not saying it is the be-all and end-all. I think it has to be balanced by some other things that we maybe need to do. Members in this House should be very concerned about the way in which the credibility of this place has been lowered quite substantially over a period of time. I believe that in the 15 years that I have been in this House the respect that people have for the Queensland parliament has diminished. All 89 members of parliament must work towards making sure that when we go out and stand proudly in front of a group of people we are respected not only for the fact that we are a member of parliament but also because we represent and support all of those people who we see before us. With those few words, I support the legislation before the House. Hopefully, it will be passed. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (9.09 pm): In rising to speak to the Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2009, I believe that 100 per cent of the people in my electorate would expect that I would support this bill. I was present in the chamber in 2006 when the events that have been alluded to in this debate occurred. The Leader of the Opposition stated in his second reading speech— In 2006 the integrity and honesty that was expected of members of parliament was destroyed by the government when it used its numbers to effectively decriminalise the offence of providing false evidence to parliament or its committees. The individual involved at that time was a person for whom I had great respect, certainly as the minister of the portfolio that he held. I had a number of dealings with him on issues in my electorate and he had responded to them with a great deal of wisdom and action, and I value that. However, I believe we did a great disservice to that member in the way that we dealt with the issue that was facing him at the time, and I still hold that view. 28 Oct 2009 Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2989

It is my belief that people in my electorate expect that we as responsible adults charged with the responsibility of representing them in this chamber do so with integrity, with honesty and to the best of our ability. People are accepting and forgiving—and those two words have to be used together—if, as an individual, we make a mistake. We may unintentionally say something in here that is inaccurate or we may cast aspersions. Overwhelmingly, on the majority of occasions that a member does come to the conclusion that the information they presented was incorrect, they take the first opportunity available and correct the record, and that is what is expected. What is not expected by my community or, I believe, by any community across this state is an intentional misleading of this parliament or the intentional provision of evidence to a committee that is misleading or dishonest. It is the intent that I want to support in this bill. I have heard the contributions of some members from both sides in relation to this debate. The member for Lytton and others have talked about the fact that this bill does not follow the Westminster system; it does not reproduce the Westminster system as it operates in other Westminster parliaments. I have heard members from the opposition who have stated with great passion that it is essential that this amendment is passed. I think it is essential that I support what I believe my community and individuals across this state expect. As I have said already, they expect us to deal honestly, fairly, justly and to the best of our ability in representing their issues, responding to their concerns and making decisions for their betterment. That has to be honestly and without duplicity. It is on that basis that I support this bill. I am not saying that it is not without its problems. As I have said, government members have highlighted some of the shortcomings. I do believe that the intent of this amendment reflects genuinely the views and values of members in the community. On that basis I support the bill. Mr Lawlor: This will be a tremendous speech! Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—LNP) (9.13 pm): I appreciate the encouragement that I am getting from those opposite. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! Before you start I want to remind all members that if they wish to interject they should return to their seats. Mr MESSENGER: This will be an interjection-free zone for the next 10 minutes or so, I am sure! I rise to wholeheartedly support the Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill. I commend the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Surfers Paradise, for introducing this piece of legislation. It boils down to the fact that, even though there are only a few shattered shreds of credibility left in this government, the government and senior members are on the line with this debate in this parliament tonight. We all know—it is an open secret—that the Premier will not be the one leading the Labor Party to the next election. I advise those opposite who have aspirations to lead the Labor Party to the next election that they should be very careful about how they speak and also how they vote on this bill. The people of Queensland have no doubt as to why we need to introduce the offence of providing false evidence to the Queensland parliament. Primary school children who visit this chamber have no difficulty understanding why members should be held accountable for providing false evidence before the House or one of its committees. In fact, I think there is a doormat outside that understands why politicians should not be telling mistruths in this parliament or before its committees. The only people who do not seem to understand that fact are, unfortunately for the people of Queensland and the people in their electorates, those opposite. In fact, what we have seen tonight in the debate is almost a celebration of it. They arrogantly flaunt it. They have no shame. They have no fear of telling mistruths to this parliament, and that is the reason this bill should be passed in this parliament tonight. Their reaction actually shows how out of touch and how delusional they have become because they have been in power for too long. It is the ‘baby’s nappy’ theory of politics, and I am sure honourable members have heard of it. Like political parties, babies’ nappies build up their own hubris and every now and again they have to be changed to be cleaned out—get rid of all the bad stuff. This is what needs to happen in Queensland. I hear those members ask, ‘What is a little untruth to parliament between friends? Is there any lessening of standards?’ It is approaching four years since the state Labor government recalled parliament and voted to stop the referral of former health minister Gordon Nuttall to the DPP despite a CMC investigation and its recommendation to take that matter before the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. In the debate it became quite apparent that Mr Nuttall had very, very strong friendships and commanded great influence with many Labor ministers and many members opposite. If anyone should doubt how Premier Bligh and many of her Labor ministers regarded or felt about the former health minister, they only have to study Hansard, which is quite an instructive, incisive document. It is worth repeating tonight. The Premier said— ... for those of us who have sat with him around a cabinet table and know him to be a decent man ... The Deputy Premier, who was in here ranting earlier—and I am sure you would have caught the performance, Mr Deputy Speaker—said— I know the member for Sandgate well and I believe that he is a good and honest man. 2990 Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 28 Oct 2009

Former minister Warren Pitt said— I stand here today and attest to the good character of the member for Sandgate. Mr SHINE: I rise to a point of order. There is a standing order which prevents repetition. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Mr SHINE: The repetition does not have to come from just one person— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please take your seat. That is not a point of order. The member for Burnett has the call. Mr MESSENGER: I thank you for your protection from the member for Toowoomba North. He obviously does not want to hear what is coming next; he may have heard it before. Former Minister Tom Barton said— I know this man very well, possibly better than anybody else in this parliament today. I want to vouch for his honesty and integrity and his values. The then member for Greenslopes, Gary Fenlon, made one of the greatest comments of all. He said— The member for Sandgate is one of the greatest members who has ever entered this parliament. He is an honest and decent human being. It was like a three-ring circus. I remember the day well. I do not think that you were there, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was December and Christmas was just around the corner. This parliament, led by Labor numbers, gave the member for Sandgate a great big Christmas present. They let him off the hook. They gave him a get-out-of-jail-free card. A government member: He is in jail. Mr MESSENGER: I will take the interjection from the member opposite. Yes, he is in jail, but we had to rely on the law of karma rather than the law of this parliament to put him behind bars. It was only because of a freak set of circumstances that he ended up there. Mr Horan: He is not in jail for lying to parliament. Mr MESSENGER: No, he is not in jail for lying to parliament. I will take that interjection. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! You will withdraw those comments, member for Burnett. Mr MESSENGER: I withdraw. I was provoked by the member for Toowoomba South. Mr Horan: I should have said he’s not in jail for being untruthful. Mr MESSENGER: That is right. Once again the credibility of this government and its senior leaders is on the line. Perhaps the Premier should be reminded that her credibility is on the line. She is the member of state parliament who publicly defended Nuttall by saying, ‘For those of us who are colleagues of the member for Sandgate, for those of us who have worked with him, for those of us who have sat with him around a cabinet table and know him to be a decent man...’ One can draw only two conclusions from that. Either the Premier knowingly misled parliament when she gave those references or she did not. If she genuinely thought that Nuttall was a decent man, what does that say about her judgement? What does that say about the judgement of those opposite who were not deliberately misleading parliament? Mr Johnson: She went to an early election, Robert. Mr MESSENGER: Yes. The Deputy Premier was in the chamber before. At the time he said— I know the member for Sandgate well and I believe that he is a good and honest man. How well did the Deputy Premier know Nuttall? Did he know him well enough to know the details of the government contracts that Nuttall had charge of? Has he ever been interviewed by the CMC about any of the information regarding Nuttall? Maybe the Deputy Premier would like to volunteer that information when he is researching all his speeches. Will he be contacting the CMC and volunteering information? Mr REEVES: I rise to a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Burnett, take a seat please. Pause the clock. Mr REEVES: I refer the House to the sub judice rules because some of these matters are before the courts. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The member for Burnett has the call. Mr MESSENGER: In closing, we have to ask ourselves why we need a restoration of standards in this place. It is because this place is a place of life and death. If we make good decisions in here, people live; if we make bad decisions, people die. If we allow mistruths to be said in this place, people will die. That is the bottom line. Tonight we are trying to raise standards and protections for all Queenslanders, including Queensland children and Queensland families. We are not doing the right thing by the families of Queensland if we do not support the raising of standards and the introduction and passing of the Leader of the Opposition’s bill. 28 Oct 2009 Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2991

This place is falling about our ears because this state is going to hell in a hand basket. Our public debt is climbing to $87 billion and it might be $100 billion by the end of this week. Who knows? How can we trust the people opposite to tell us the truth? We cannot. We cannot trust them because they have lost the trust of Queensland emphatically. If this bill is not passed tonight, it will be another demonstration of the loss of that trust. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—LNP) (9.24 pm): Tonight is an important debate because we are talking about all of the traditions and the values of this parliament that the people of Queensland hold in great stead, as well as the standards that the public expects of members of parliament. The institution of parliament and its members have taken a battering over recent years. Members of parliament have been jailed and there have been debates about issues to do with parliament. However, the parliament took no bigger battering than when a change to the legislation was mooted in 2005 and put in place in 2006 that removed from the code the criminal offence of being dishonest when making statements to the parliament or giving evidence to the estimates committees or other committees. People expect a lot of politicians, priests and police. They expect high standards, despite the fact that those people are human beings and may fail. They expect higher standards from people who hold positions of trust. The original legislation, which the Leader of the Opposition is attempting to reintroduce through this bill, acted as a handbrake that stopped people from going too far in telling mistruths, not only in the parliament but when giving evidence to committees. Let us look at the importance of some of those committees. These days the state budget is around $36 billion or $37 billion. Therefore, the estimates committees are very important, as are the matters that are canvassed and the evidence that is taken by those committees. Absolute truth must be provided by witnesses, whether they are members of parliament, senior members of the Public Service, or anyone else who is called before a committee to give evidence. That is true for all committees, not just the estimates committee. It is important to the people of Queensland that they can trust the integrity of this parliament and the integrity of the process of giving evidence on such important matters as multimillion-dollar and multibillion-dollar contracts before, for example, the Public Works Committee, the Public Accounts Committee or an estimates committee, or serious matters that may be examined by the PCMC or an inquiry being undertaken by a select committee looking into the sale of petrol. It is important that the truth—the absolute truth—is told and that any temptation for people not to tell the truth is firmly pushed out of the way by the strong sanctions that used to exist in the Criminal Code. The Labor government undertook a major review of the Criminal Code. Eminent attorneys- general such as Matthew Foley, the former member for Yeronga, and Mr Welford undertook reviews and changes. Throughout those extensive reviews they never saw fit to make the sort of changes that were made in 2005 to protect a Labor mate, the former member for Sandgate. I doubt if members of the Labor government of the day would have dared to do what they did in 2005 and 2006 if they knew then what they know now. But they did it to save a Labor mate. Previously in this parliament I have spoken about Attorney-General Foley. He did not see fit to make any changes to the legislation. He was a great civil libertarian. If anyone thought there should have been changes, it would have been him. Attorney-General Welford took parts out of the Electoral Act and put them into the Criminal Code because of the scandal surrounding rorts by previous Labor members that resulted in the Shepherdson inquiry. The Shepherdson inquiry once again dented public confidence incredibly. Three Labor members of parliament had to resign: Mr Elder, Mr Musgrave and Mr Kaiser. Another one, who still sits here today, was saved by the skin of his teeth because, as I remember, the effluxion of time meant that no action could be taken. Just a few days saved his bacon. Tonight he had the hide to come in here and lecture us. As others have said, he could not remember who was driving the car when he went through the red light. We have a unicameral parliament in Queensland. We are different from other places. Everything in here is won by the vote and that is the end of it. There is no handbrake in the form of an upper house. It is essential that the truth is told in this parliament. As I said previously, it is essential in important committees of inquiry or in estimates committees, where we are dealing with billions of dollars and matters of great importance to the public of Queensland such as the accountability of spending taxpayers’ money, that everybody tells the truth and knows the consequences of not telling the truth. Under the previous legislation that contained criminal sanctions, there would have had to have been a whole process. First of all, the member of parliament would have had the opportunity to apologise and reverse the decision. But then there would have had to have been charges laid. There would have had to have been an investigation by the Queensland police. There would have had to have been a referral to the DPP. Then there would have had to have been a court case judged by our judicial system. So it was a fair and lengthy process, but it certainly meant that members in this House had hanging over them this very, very strong standard and sanction to make sure that they told the truth. Basically, now all that happens is someone can get up and say, ‘I’m sorry. I misled the House,’ or ‘I was wrong. It was a mistake.’ 2992 Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 28 Oct 2009

When this matter was brought before the parliament by the Labor government in 2005, it was about someone who had repeatedly been asked the same question at the estimates hearing and continued to come back with the same answer and continued the whole attitude towards the situation until finally he was dragged kicking and screaming into this place by the government indicating that it would change the legislation to make a belated apology. How would we in this parliament deal with people who are not members of parliament who deliberately mislead an estimates committee, who deliberately mislead an inquiry being held by one of our very important committees of this parliament— be it public works or public accounts or the ethics committee or any of the other committees? How would we deal with it? Are we going to suddenly be the judge and jury or should it be better left, as it would be under the legislation that we are endeavouring to bring into this House, for charges to be laid, for investigations to take place, for proceedings to be referred to the DPP as a result of those investigations and then for the courts to make that judgement? It is not our job to be judge and jury. We are here as members of parliament. This place has been tarnished by members of parliament being jailed for corruption, paedophilia, attempting to bribe the Premier—all sorts of things. Ms Jones: What about members of the National Party? Mr HORAN: I take the interjection that members of my party back in the 1980s were jailed. Some of those matters were then dealt with by changes to regulations. To the extent that ministers now have the right and privilege to use ministerial cars, back then people went to jail for using them in that way. We then had the head of the CMC in the early 1990s tell this House that enough was enough when travel matters were being investigated. Changes were then made, as I remember, to travel arrangements so that it was clear to everybody what they were and were not entitled to. What this is about tonight is having integrity in this place and having an absolute system of truth and honesty from members of this parliament and those people giving evidence to very important committees of the parliament dealing with taxpayers’ funds so that the public can have confidence and so that this place can once again be held in high esteem. It lost that esteem in 2006 when Labor passed its insidious legislation that ruined public confidence once and for all. (Time expired) Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (9.34 pm): Grave wrongs are perpetrated in this House on occasions, and allowing and legitimising politicians to stray from the truth was definitely wrong. Tonight we have the opportunity to correct that wrong and to not do so condemns every single one of us. The basic tenet of this House is to lead. So let us lead and return some integrity to the House. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—LNP) (9.35 pm): Yes, parliament was recalled. I will never, ever forget that day pre-Christmas 2005 when parliament was recalled to try to exonerate the then member for Sandgate. If we had been in government, our leader would not have recalled parliament to try to help us through a sticky situation. Our leader would have called us to his office and said, ‘You’re out of parliament. You’re gone because we don’t condone that type of behaviour on this side.’ Ms Struthers: There’s no record of your leaders having done that. Mr JOHNSON: I can assure you that the leaders of the party that I have been a member of over the last 20 years would never, ever condone that. I can assure you that the now Leader of the Opposition when he is Premier will not condone that either. Ms Struthers: What about your leader? No-one told him to go. Mr JOHNSON: You were one of the members, Minister, who voted that day to support your colleague. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! Member for Gregory. Mr JOHNSON: You should be ashamed of that situation. Ms Struthers interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Gregory, order! Minister, order! Mr JOHNSON: Well, she is having a go. I will have a go back. Ms Struthers interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet, Minister. Ms Struthers: There is only so much hypocrisy we can take, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Minister, please go through the chair. Member for Gregory, same to you. Please do not use the word ‘you’. Mr JOHNSON: Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for your protection. If the minister wants to have a go, I will certainly retaliate. When it comes to honesty, integrity and decency, that is why the people of Queensland elect us—to come in here and do the right thing. We have seen what this government did in 2005. We saw what this government did in 2006 when it changed the legislation to make it legal. 28 Oct 2009 Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2993

We had the Fitzgerald inquiry and what happened after that? The then Premier, Wayne Goss, and his government implemented that report. After Wayne Goss’s government, we were fortunately then in government for 2¼ years and then along came Peter Beattie. He carried that Fitzgerald inquiry report under his arm every day of his first six years as Premier and said what that document meant. What did Mr Fitzgerald say recently? He said, ‘You have now thrown that document out. You have not upheld some of those findings in that document.’ There are two sets of rules in here: one to suit government ministers and one to suit the rest. As far as I am concerned, we were all elected to this parliament to do the right thing by the constituents of Queensland. As Mr Beattie always said, we want honest, accountable and transparent government. This is not about honest, accountable and transparent government. The government changed the rules to suit the member for Sandgate. What happened then? He was found guilty by the judicial system and imprisoned for his crime. Now, there is the unfortunate situation where there are other charges pending. This is a sad and sorry saga of the democratic process here in Queensland. I remember what the member for Gladstone said earlier. I had a lot of dealings with the member for Sandgate when he was minister, and I had a lot of profitable and beneficial outcomes for my electorate as a result of his ministerialship. But it saddens me to think that under the oath of government we have had somebody who was dishonest behind the scenes. We had the Deputy Premier come into this chamber tonight and cast aspersions on members of this side of the House who were in government and who went to prison for a lot less than what the then member for Sandgate committed. This private member’s bill that the Leader of the Opposition has so admirably put before the House—the Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2009—should be supported by everyone in this parliament. It will be an indictment on the freedom of democracy and the honesty in democracy if this bill is thrown out tonight. In closing, one of the most important aspects of this parliament in a situation like this is if the people of Queensland regain their confidence in us and we use a bipartisan approach. So if we got it wrong once, we do not get it wrong twice. We examine our situation, examine our conscience and say, ‘We did get that wrong. We got it wrong for the reasons that are not appropriate to good, open and democratic government in this state.’ I urge members of the government tonight to show leadership and support us after the Leader of the Opposition sums up this legislation. I urge government members to show how much they have moved forward from 2006 when they reversed this legislation; I urge them to give this outcome the credibility it deserves. Changing the laws to suit one member is an unfortunate situation that people are still talking about. People need to bear in mind why the Premier went to the people of Queensland in March this year. Yes, the government had an $85 billion and growing debt, but it also had the court case of the then member for Sandgate coming up and the government did not want further embarrassment or the people of Queensland to judge it when one of its members was incarcerated because of criminal activity. This is a slur on the democracy of Queensland. What is supposed to be a transparent, open and honest government is no longer. Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (9.41 pm), in reply: In rising to sum up the second reading debate on the Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill, I want to quote this line— In considering ethics and integrity, it must be appreciated that the perception of ethics and integrity in a system of government is as important as the reality. Indeed, perceptions are reality. These are the opening lines from the Clerk of the Queensland parliament’s submission to the Premier’s green paper on integrity and accountability in parliament. Isn’t this a reflection on this Labor government? They are opposing honesty and integrity, and don’t those members hate it. Tonight, we have heard contributions from the member for Rockhampton, the member for Sunnybank and the member for Lytton and, of course, three weeks ago we heard from the Attorney-General, the member for Greenslopes, and the member for Murrumba—senior members of the government—and don’t they just hate it. They normally will not amend the Criminal Code at all, but what did they do in 2006? They came in and changed something for the supposed reasons we have heard tonight that I will deal with in a minute. This bill has its origins in the total abuse of parliamentary process that occurred in December 2005, which the Premier played a significant role in. Again, it was the Clerk of this parliament whose assessment of that act by this government was— The recall of Parliament on 9 December 2005 to deal with a matter arising from a CMC investigation and report is an example of how dealing with an ethical issue can easily become hopelessly partisan if normal procedure is not followed. That day in this House was the darkest this parliament had seen in my time here. The then Deputy Premier, and now the current Premier, seconded a motion to let a man off a charge of deliberately misleading an estimates committee, and this man has since been found guilty of official corruption. What a great judge of character the Premier showed herself to be. 2994 Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 28 Oct 2009

What is truth without honesty? As politicians, truth and honesty in our spoken word is the end product of why we are here. We come into this House to pass laws and set policy agendas on the words we speak in this place. Why should we not be bound by law to tell the truth? That is what we are elected to do and what the people of Queensland expect. If members have nothing to fear in what they say as being the truth then supporting this bill should not be an issue. We as members of parliament enjoy parliamentary privilege, so why shouldn’t that privilege be bound by a legal obligation to make sure it is the truth? People can make mistakes and no-one is denying that, but if there is a deliberate intent to provide false evidence to avoid scrutiny or to hide the truth, then that is no different to fraud or any other criminal act of deception and should be punished accordingly. When we talk about parliamentary privilege, it was John Waugh who wrote in 2004 in the Media and Arts Law Review— Australian parliaments have some remarkable powers and privileges. Among them, varying from place to place, are powers to imprison without fair trial and without appeal, to expel members by a majority vote, and to punish criticism of parliament. In a Dickensian touch, standing orders of some parliaments even prescribe fees to be paid by their prisoners for the privilege of being arrested, transported to gaol and fed in custody. Waugh went on to say— Only disuse saves the most extreme of these powers from the widespread condemnation they deserve. Media lawyers might be reassured to know that the Victorian Legislative Assembly hasn’t arrested a newspaper publisher since 1899, but it ordered the detention of four in the nineteenth century, and its powers haven’t changed since. The House of Representatives’ three month imprisonment of a newspaper proprietor and editor in 1955 is better known. The most recent prisoner of parliament was Brian Easton, sent to gaol by the Legislative Council of Western Australia in 1995 for failing to comply with an order to apologise for drawing up a misleading petition. He went on to say— The daily reality of parliamentary privilege is less striking. The immunities that protect MPs’ freedom of speech, and the rules and practice of parliamentary inquiries, are more important in practice than the little used penal powers. MPs can’t, of course, be sued for what they say in parliament, but their protection goes further. In May 2006, this Labor government destroyed the last vestige of perceived honesty and integrity in this House when it repealed the old laws relating to providing false evidence to parliament or its committees. Now all the public sees is Caesar judging Caesar. We know that surveys show that 80 per cent of Queenslanders do not trust this Premier, and I wonder how many of her own Labor colleagues harbour that same distrust. Many Queenslanders feel betrayed by the secret plan to sell off Queensland’s assets or to slug Queenslanders with a 9c a litre fuel tax. The amendments moved in 2006 were a quick headline fix to avoid the Nuttall crisis, but that cancer has left a permanent scar on the corrupt history of this Labor government and it will be the main thing people remember of Premier Bligh and her colleagues when they reflect on the last 11 years. People will all say, ‘She let him off.’ This begs the question: given we cannot trust what the Premier says, we can now assume with some degree of confidence that maybe she did have some knowledge of the dealings of her Labor mate and now convicted criminal, Gordon Nuttall. Where else but under a Queensland Labor government could you be forced to resign over electoral rorting only to return as the chief of staff and key political advisor to the government? It is no wonder the government has removed the provision we are now debating, when criminal behaviour seems to be in its DNA. If, as the Premier and Deputy Premier claim, they never supported the actions of Gordon Nuttall, they now have a chance to stand up and admit they made a mistake in supporting the course of action they took in 2005 and 2006. It is time this Premier and this Labor government stopped trying to construct the truth around getting out of a negative headline and actually reclaimed the truth. The first step would be to support this bill and restore some integrity to government. As we debate this bill, I want to reflect on something the Attorney-General, the member for Greenslopes, said during estimates this year. In that hearing he said— All members of this parliament are subject to the rules that apply in all other parliaments in the Westminster tradition, including the United Kingdom House of Commons, the Commonwealth parliament, the parliament of New South Wales, the parliament of Tasmania, the parliament of South Australia, the parliament of Western Australia and the assemblies of the ACT and the Northern Territory, which regulate the behaviour and conduct of members of parliament. I want to reflect carefully on this statement of fact given to the estimates hearing, because if we go to section 57 of the Western Australian Criminal Code, which is still in force as of this day, what does it say? Section 57, under ‘False evidence before Parliament’, says— Any person who in the course of an examination before either House of Parliament, or before a committee of either House, or before a joint committee of both Houses, knowingly gives a false answer to any lawful and relevant question put to him in the course of the examination, is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 7 years. The member for Rockhampton said the same thing today—that there were no other parliaments in which this provision applies. It seems to me that, based on the statement given by the Attorney-General during estimates, when compared to the truth he could be said to have provided false evidence to a parliamentary committee on the very issue that we are debating here today. Mr DICK: Mr Deputy Speaker— 28 Oct 2009 Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2995

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Is this a point of order? Mr DICK: It is a point of order. It is grossly offensive what the Leader of the Opposition has been saying. He has made no reference to my speech in the second reading debate in this parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Attorney, that is not a— Mr DICK: He should withdraw the imputation that I misled the parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you saying that it is personally offensive? Mr DICK: Personally grossly offensive. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have been asked to withdraw, Leader of the Opposition. Mr LANGBROEK: I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member for Greenslopes, who slipped up on his first major outing, could not even provide the facts. It is very different from what Gordon Nuttall did, and that is where we get the perspective that with the original intention there is always the discretion of police and the DPP about prosecutions. That is exactly what the government has been arguing here tonight—that these sorts of things should not apply, including what the member for Rockhampton said in his argument. Let us go back to what started this issue—the deliberate providing of false evidence to an estimates committee by former health minister and now convicted corrupt Labor mate Gordon Nuttall. During the debate in December 2005 the Deputy Premier made it very clear— I know the member for Sandgate well and I believe that he is a good and honest man. With the advantage of hindsight, we can say that the Deputy Premier provided false evidence to the parliament on that occasion as we now know the truth about Gordon Nuttall. It surprises me that the Deputy Premier suddenly proclaimed his own naivety towards Nuttall when he made it very clear to the parliament in 2005 that he knew him well. It begs the question: how much of Gordon Nuttall’s actions were known by the Deputy Premier at the time, particularly when, despite deliberately misleading the estimates committee and committing a criminal act at the time, the Deputy Premier was willing to go out on a limb and make such a bold statement? More concerning is that in the incorporated part of the Deputy Premier’s speech he puts the whole incident down to parliamentary privilege. I can hardly see how deliberately misleading parliament or a committee is parliamentary privilege. When I look back at the comments of the member for Keppel, who is now the head of the PCMC, I am disturbed. He claims that the CMC did not know what it was doing. To quote his words, ‘The CMC obviously did not quite know what to do.’ I note that the member for Keppel adopted the comments made by the member for Greenslopes about the derision that the actions of the CMC would bring upon the parliament. This comes from the man who now heads the committee responsible for oversight of and referral to the CMC. I want to turn to what the CMC said in its original report under the heading ‘The law’. It states— If a minister were to knowingly give false answers while appearing before an estimates committee, such conduct would amount to an offence against section 57 of the Criminal Code. The false answer must be to a question that was both lawful and relevant to the examination. Equally, such conduct would support a finding that the minister committed contempt of parliament (within the meaning of section 37 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001). Under the next heading ‘The CMC’s Position’ it states— On the basis of the evidence identified in the investigation, the CMC has decided that prosecution proceedings within the meaning of section 49(1) of the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 should be considered. In accordance with legal advice accepted by the CMC, this report is therefore furnished to the Attorney-General for her to bring it before parliament for its decision as to the course that should be followed. Parliament may direct the Attorney-General to prosecute the minister for the offence created by section 57 of the Criminal Code. Alternatively, if parliament concludes that the more appropriate course is to deal with the matter as a contempt of parliament, it may direct that the matter be dealt with in accordance with Part 2 of Chapter 3 of the Parliament of Queensland Act. And that is exactly what happened. It was the disgraceful actions that followed which showed how the Labor government misused the parliamentary process to let off a Labor mate. The CMC had sought independent legal advice before reaching its decision. Despite all the crowing from this government that the CMC is a standing royal commission, we only have to look at how it trashed it during that debate and how it treated its decisions with disdain to see more reasons for the establishment of a royal commission into this Labor government’s corruption and cronyism over the past 11 years. I now want to turn to comments of members made during the debate tonight and a couple of weeks ago. I want to thank my colleagues, first of all, for their support in their speeches, especially the considered contribution by a former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Toowoomba South. The first point the Attorney-General made, in the fourth line of his speech, was a statement that goes to the very heart of the bill that I am proposing. In his first statement the Attorney states as fact— Excluding a new title, not a single, solitary word has changed in the bill. 2996 Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 28 Oct 2009

Let us examine clause 5 of this bill, which states— However, if a person, during an examination before the Assembly or a committee of the Assembly, knowingly gives a false answer to a lawful and relevant question put to the person during the examination, the person may only be proceeded against for the offence against the Criminal Code, section 57. Now let me examine clause 5 of the bill introduced in August 2008, which states— However, if a person’s conduct is both a contempt of the Assembly and an offence against the Criminal Code, section 57, the person may only be proceeded against for the offence. Note— Criminal Code, section 57 (False evidence before Parliament)’. Mr Cripps: Misled the House. Mr LANGBROEK: Mr Deputy Speaker, as you can see, and as the member for Hinchinbrook points out, these clauses are very different, utilising different wording. Clause 5 in this bill now provides a more clear and concise application of this clause in conjunction with the new section 57 of the Criminal Code. It is the second time that the member for Greenslopes has come in here and misrepresented the information in this bill. But more seriously, we have the state’s first law officer misleading parliament on statements of fact that are clearly false. Either he or his advisers have failed to read the new bill introduced into parliament and now he faces having to explain why he either did not even bother to read the bill— Mr DICK: I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I find the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition grossly offensive and I ask him to withdraw. An opposition member: You have a glass jaw. Mr LANGBROEK: I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. But he does have a glass jaw for a new boy who clearly has not bothered to read this bill. It shows lazy, cheap politics that the so-called first law officer of this state has displayed. It shows that, despite having been in this parliament for only seven months, he is happy to be tarred with the same brush as his Labor mates, who let off a subsequently convicted corrupt Labor minister for deliberately misleading parliament. The Attorney failed to even mention the reason the original section of the Criminal Code was repealed or the fact that former Labor mate Gordon Nuttall has since been found guilty of official corruption. We have heard nothing from the Attorney-General that would give us any comfort that this government has learned anything from the Nuttall experience and that the same unaccountable, questionable conduct that has been a trademark of Labor over the last 11 years will not continue. We heard next from a former Attorney-General, the member for Murrumba, whose speeches I often enjoy. He gave us I think the quote of the year. Perhaps it was the lateness of the debate, but his statement was— Truth is not something for mortals to determine; truth is something for reality to determine. I am not sure what reality the honourable member is living in, but in Queensland before the law it is mortals that decide truth. I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made the point clear when he said— The last time I looked at the record of who comprised the courts of Queensland I saw that they were made of mortals. They were not made up of supernatural individuals. Ms Jones interjected. Mr LANGBROEK: The member for Ashgrove is interjecting in that great way she does. She then ducks down after making an interjection because she is a bit fearful of getting jumped on. The member for Rockhampton wanted to speak about the old regimes of Queensland but he did not want to speak about December 2005. Incredibly, he still justifies the actions. It was staggering. He used as an excuse that, because Labor at their poorest in the seventies did not use elements of the Criminal Code when in power, it should not be amended since. He did not realise it is still in Western Australia. He also thinks we should carry on in parliament like it is a football game—leave it on the field. There was no consideration for the seriousness of what Gordon Nuttall did on that day when a number of times he was asked to give the right information and he preferred not to. The member for Rockhampton also argued about section 56. Section 56 is not a part of this bill. He also said that it was a matter that could have been dealt with by the MEPPC. The events of December 2005 were being dealt with by the MEPPC, and this government came in and deliberately overrode the MEPPC on that day when they allowed Gordon Nuttall to apologise to the parliament and let him off before subsequently amending the Criminal Code, which we are now trying to amend. Then the Deputy Premier came in tonight frothing at the mouth and gave a sanctimonious rant with a lack of understanding. He does not even understand that the executive is answerable to parliament and the law. That is what the provision had in it. He likes to think that people at the Wynnum IGA may not be talking about it. People at the Wynnum IGA do not think it is okay to come in and tell untruths to parliament. He is clearly in an ivory tower from having been in this place for too long. 28 Oct 2009 Criminal Code (Honesty and Integrity in Parliament) Amendment Bill 2997

The fact that no-one has been prosecuted under this law does not make it a bad law; it made it an effective law and it had clearly been a deterrent. What we are trying to do tonight restores the original intention, allowing for the discretion of the police and the DPP to prosecute should they see fit. Privilege is not a double standard for parliamentarians. It is composed of those rights without which parliament and its members could not discharge their functions. It is something that should be used sparingly and only to the extent absolutely necessary. If it is accepted that, as in courts of law, witnesses before parliamentary committees should be honest and not give false testimony, then it is impossible to discern any legitimate reason a double standard needs to apply to parliamentarians. What possible argument can be put forward that it is ‘absolutely necessary’ for the due execution of parliament’s functions for ministerial witnesses to be able to tell untruths to parliamentary committees. In Queensland, as other members have pointed out, the absence of an upper house means that the parliamentary committee system is an essential part of responsible and accountable government. Apart from question time, it is the only oversight mechanism that the parliament has over the executive government. As a matter of principle and practice, the public must be assured that witnesses will not tell untruths to parliament or to its committees. Like so many so-called reforms instituted by the Beattie government and perpetuated by the present government, nobody believes the spin anymore. The parliament, the media, the general public know that what they do, or more often say, is merely whatever it takes to get them out of their latest political scrape. The amendments to the Criminal Code amendments—and they can read it in Hansard as we can read it tomorrow—were a short-term fix to avert one particular crisis involving Nuttall, who had been caught out telling untruths to the parliament. We know what sort of a man Minister Nuttall was, but we should not let the government use him as a convenient scapegoat to distract attention from the institutional failings that have occurred in this state under its watch. This is the slide in public sector accountability for which Tony Fitzgerald QC called the government out in his recent address, where he observed that the present Labor government considered accountability to be collateral damage in its fight to retain power. That is no surprise in Queensland. We have ourselves lived with government by headline for 11 years now. But we have also watched how it is practised elsewhere and we know how the sad burlesque plays out, when eventually the lines fall flat and the audience stops clapping. We have watched developments in New South Wales, where our Premier’s chief of staff honed his craft in the Iemma government and where we now see the end game of a government that imploded long ago but cannot be got rid of because of a fixed term. But it is the UK ‘new Labour’ government of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown that is the intellectual home of the Bligh and the Rees governments. There, the spin has run out and the proponents of the new way have been unmasked as false prophets. The distinguished political journalist Peter Oborne in the 2009 Keith Joseph Memorial Lecture labelled it the first postmodernist British government, in which he stated— The purpose of public argument has moved right away from truths that can be proven to narratives that can be constructed. This is formally recognised by the ruling elite. Peter Mandelson, one of the inventors of the new politics, speaks of the need to ‘create the truth’. Apologists for the new ruling elite celebrate this proposition. One of the themes of Peter Oborne’s lecture was that appearance had taken over from reality. He argued— This has led to a startling state of affairs. Britain has never enjoyed such an apparently active central government as over the last ten years. There have never been so many initiatives, press releases, New Deals, action plans. They key thing to understand is that all of this activity carries on almost entirely independently of life as it is lived by ordinary people. Despite official statistics produced by state employees to prove that they work, this blizzard of activity is actually part of a parallel universe. Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan have noted this phenomenon of virtual government in their new book and they summon up Tony Blair’s toe-curling memo calling for ‘eye-catching initiatives’ as evidence. ‘The memo contained one sentence which bears particular contemplation,’ the authors note: ‘We also need a far tougher rebuttal or, alternatively, action’. As Carswell and Hannan observe: ‘Blair had grasped that, in the contemporary political climate, rebuttal is action. ... Passing legislation that you never mean to enforce undermines respect for the rule of law, because it sends out the message that law-breaking has been sanctioned by the government. Announcing and reannouncing initiatives to solve pressing problems facing ordinary people that are never designed to take effect may gain an incumbent government a short term advantage. But in the medium to long term this constant building up of false expectations causes ordinary voters to lose their faith in politics, and to look elsewhere. These comments are completely apposite to the Queensland government. This year, it emerged that the state government is the largest media employer in Queensland. With more than 420 spin doctors on the staff at an annual cost of more than $40 million, that amounts to four times the number of journalists employed by the Courier-Mail and 19 more than the whole of the ABC workforce in Queensland. Peter Beattie commended the Nuttall amendments to the Criminal Code to this House as a reform designed to protect and enhance democracy in Queensland. The current Premier, eager to distract attention from the failings of the government that she inherited, has been on Celebrity MasterChef. She is probably oblivious to the irony that she is resorting to the old bread and circuses routine—a favourite trick of the Roman emperors to placate their disaffected citizens. 2998 Adjournment 28 Oct 2009

It is time to stop constructing the truth and time to reclaim it. Part of that process is to restore the institutional integrity of the Queensland parliament and to insist that those who speak to the parliament do not mislead it. I commend the bill to the House. Division: Question put—That the bill now be read a second time. AYES, 32—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Foley, Hobbs, Hopper, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Seeney, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey. Tellers: Horan, Messenger NOES, 46—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, Robertson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Darling Resolved in the negative.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.13 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Hervey Bay Hospital Mr SORENSEN (Hervey Bay—LNP) (10.13 pm): I rise to talk about two families in Hervey Bay that have had to deal with the emotional turmoil of losing loved ones. The loss and desperation they are currently suffering is made worse by the dismay and confusion that basic health care and assessment was not afforded to them or their loved ones through our health system. In Hansard on 19 October 2009 the Minister for Health stated— Please do not challenge me to a discussion at length on health. I challenge the Minister for Health to a discussion at length about the Hervey Bay Hospital and its extended, exhausted service delivery and tired and resigning nursing staff that just cannot keep up. I want to talk to him about poor Mavis Jameson. Mavis was turned away from the emergency department of the Hervey Bay Hospital with no scans, no tests and a diagnosis of dehydration. She was still in pain when she was bundled into a taxi at 9.30 pm and returned home to her elderly husband. Her husband was telling them that she had the exact same symptoms of bowel obstruction as he had seen many times before. When people are turned away, they are lost. Mavis’s husband, Colin, had a horrid night with his wife in pain. The next morning he went to their own GP and told him what had happened. The GP told Colin to go back home and call the ambulance and get Mavis back to hospital. The GP said that he would ring the Hervey Bay Hospital emergency department to expect them. He knew how urgent it was that Mavis be admitted to hospital. By all reports he was angry. Mavis had emergency surgery two days after she should have had it. It is no surprise that Mavis is now in heaven. It was explained to the family that she had died of septicaemia and a heart attack. It does not say that on the death certificate. I challenge the health minister to a discussion at length about the appalling care and assessment of Toni Powell. Glen and Toni have had three children and Toni knows how her pregnancies go. Toni has high blood pressure when she is pregnant. Everybody in this room knows that high blood pressure and pregnancy are a volatile cocktail and a recipe for a sad outcome for mother and baby if not monitored. Toni was told early in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy that it would not go full term; it would be the same as it was with her previous children. True to form and history, Toni developed high blood pressure. Toni was pleading to be induced late in her pregnancy. After all, she had been induced with her other two children. (Time expired) UN Refugee Convention Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (10.16 pm): It seems public concerns are building over increased illegal boat arrivals in Australia, but I know that thinking Australians who value life, freedom and democracy are very relieved knowing that Australia has signed up to the UN Refugee Convention in order to protect asylum seekers. So is it not very worrying for so many to jump to conclusions, assuming the worst, when the jury is still out regarding those most recently seeking refuge? If we are to treat asylum seekers with humanity and dignity, it does not take much imagination to understand why some refugees coming from a place of corruption, war, violence and rape would be risking their lives and the lives of their families to flee to a land of promised respect. Australia is one of the luckiest countries in the world, rating high as one of the most liveable nations—above America, the UK and Canada. And don’t we take our lifestyles for granted? So, while the hype is focused on those asylum seekers who risk their lives, paying huge life savings to travel with unscrupulous mariners on overloaded and unsafe vessels, we overlook a larger problem of plane 28 Oct 2009 Adjournment 2999 people and overstayers. Although additional visas and extensions are available, overstayers are a significant reality, with 32 per cent resident in Australia for over 10 years. Those arriving on visitor visas comprise the biggest group of overstayers—85 per cent, in fact. While boat people hail mostly from war- torn Middle Eastern countries, the top country of origin among Australia’s lesser-known plane arrivals is the People’s Republic of China.

Over a seven-month period, September 2008 to June 2009, the 600 boat people intercepted by Australian border protection ships were positively dwarfed by the 2,887 plane people: visitors who arrived legally and claimed asylum seeker status once arriving in Australia. Interestingly, there is little focus on the 50,000 illegal residents in Australia. Added to plane people are those overstayers who come to Australia legally on visas but who do not leave when their temporary visa expires. As of 2005 there were a total of 47,000 overstayers in Australia, 85 per cent of whom came to Australia on a tourist visa and did not return once the visa expired. Overstayers are a considerable burden to the community because of the cost of their location and removal from Australia, as well as their access to government services, benefits and our labour market, which are intended for Australian citizens and lawful residents only. Overstayers may also be a health and security risk because they have not been through the stringent health and character checks that are mandatory for long-term visa applicants. During the heated national and international debate we are having right now, it would be prudent to look carefully at why insignificant numbers of boat people with often legitimate claims of asylum are portrayed as a major threat to our way of life, yet visitors with often tenuous claims to asylum or, worse, blatant disregard for Australian immigration— (Time expired)

Craigslea State High School; Aspley State High School

Ms DAVIS (Aspley—LNP) (10.19 pm): It is the time of year when schools celebrate the achievements of their students at their annual speech nights. In the past week I have had the pleasure of attending and presenting the citizenship awards at the Craigslea State High School awards night and the Aspley State High School speech night. Craigslea State High School, under the stewardship of Principal John Fitzgerald, is home to around 800 students. The school’s purpose is to create a safe, tolerant and disciplined environment within which young people prepare to be active and reflective Australian citizens with a disposition to lifelong learning. Students participate in a varied curriculum as well as a variety of extracurricular activities, reinforcing Craigslea’s proud tradition in the arts, sport and hospitality. It was terrific to see the school community come together to acknowledge and honour the efforts of the students across academic, sporting and cultural fields. Based on what I observed on the night, the school is certainly living up to its motto, ‘Striving for excellence’, as teachers assist students to develop their knowledge, skills and attitudes so that they can confidently take their place in our society as the leaders and responsible citizens of tomorrow. Last night, I was delighted to attend the Aspley State High School Speech Night. Aspley State High School is a safe and tolerant school community which boasts representation in its student body of 35 different nationalities. This reflects the vivid multicultural society that exists in our part of Brisbane. The school’s rich and diverse curriculum, coupled with its vast extracurricular program inclusive of arts, music, sport, debating and hospitality, means that it is no surprise that Aspley High’s student and parent satisfaction survey rates the highest in Brisbane’s northern suburbs. I am also very encouraged by both the special education program, which supports and caters for students with intellectual disabilities, autism spectrum disorders, speech and language issues and vision impairments, and the learning support team of professionals and volunteers who assist gifted students, students with disabilities and students for whom English is a second language. One of the highlights of the night for me was a heartfelt message from Mr Schuh to his students. Mr Schuh said—

In 2009, my consistent message to students has been around decency—becoming a decent person. The tragedy of the young man killed by a punch in a NSW school over a table sent home an urgent reminder around decency. Aspley State High School is full of decent people. Decent people care about others and selflessly give to others less fortunate. I cannot be prouder of the efforts of our students. The high schools in the Aspley electorate are vibrant and diverse, but they share a common goal and that is to contribute to the lifelong learning of their students and to assist with preparing them for their future. I say congratulations to all of the students on their efforts over the year and my special best wishes go to those completing grade 12 as they embark upon the next phase of their life journey. (Time expired) 3000 Adjournment 28 Oct 2009

Breast Cancer Awareness Month Ms DARLING (Sandgate—ALP) (10.22 pm): October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Today in Australia there are many organisations involved in breast cancer awareness and fundraising for research and support services. On Monday, 5 October I attended a Pink Ribbon Breakfast at McDonald’s at Bracken Ridge which was organised by Monique Cardiff. It was a lovely morning. I met a survivor of breast cancer, a relative of a survivor, friends of survivors and community members who wanted to play their part in raising funds for vital breast cancer research. I was lucky enough to win a raffle, which included a beautiful Jane McGrath rose bush. So I thought it my duty to pass on this good fortune and to pass on the message about breast cancer. So when I visited Nashville State School the following week to celebrate its $50,000 win in the NAB Schools First Impact Awards for outstanding performance in school-community partnerships for its community ‘Garden of Promise’, I took the opportunity to talk to the parents, students and teachers about breast cancer awareness. I gave the Jane McGrath rose bush to the prep students to plant in their sensory garden and encouraged them to study hard in maths and science because the lifestyle of cancer sufferers depends on continued research by our scientists now and into the future. This Friday I will again attend the Sonomas of Sandgate Pink Ribbon Research Luncheon. Last year this event raised $25,000 for the National Breast Cancer Foundation’s research program and this year the aim is $30,000. Gaye Forbes and Nikki Ballish do a magnificent job in organising this special event on the Sandgate calendar, and I look forward to a great lunch. BreastScreen Queensland expects to screen 235,000 women in 2009-10, a 7.8 per cent increase from the 2008-09 year. The increase is encouraging, but more women need to utilise the service. Queensland will be the first state to implement digital mammography state-wide for BreastScreen Queensland which will also increase the number of women that can be screened. Fifty-three analogue mammography machines have been converted or replaced with state-of-the-art digital mammography equipment, including six mobiles, at a total cost of $16.5 million. I would encourage women of the Sandgate electorate between the ages of 50 and 69 years to make a booking with Brisbane Northside Screening and Assessment Service, which is located at 534 Hamilton Road, Chermside. Women aged 40 to 49 and 70 or over are also welcome to have their screenings with BreastScreen Queensland. They can just call 132050 to make an appointment or discuss their requirements. No referral is required. If a screening does find a cancer, Queensland Health professionals and organisations like Breast Cancer Network Australia are there to support women all the way through their treatment. I thank all the local organisations and individuals who have embraced Breast Cancer Awareness Month. I will continue to hope that a pathway to prevention is just around the corner.

Labor Party Mr BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (10.25 pm): Just when I thought the Labor Party could not stoop any lower in its negative politicising I discovered I was wrong. Tonight in this House the Minister for Public Works and Information and Communication Technology reflected on me with respect to a federal election campaign in which I was involved in 2001. The surprising aspect is that, for the six months that I have been in this great place, I have heard day by day the government members criticising the Courier-Mail for stories it runs. They continually object to questions being raised by the Courier-Mail and often question the substance of the media articles. In fact, I even heard it in question time today. Then tonight we had a minister of the Crown attempting to score a cheap political point by referring to a Courier-Mail story that dated back to 2001. It gets better. Not only has the minister relied on the Courier-Mail as his source of information; he relies also on the website Crikey—a very trustworthy source of political resources if ever I have heard of any! There is no secret to this story. Honourable members can go online and Google it. The issue that the minister has raised this evening dealt with a federal campaign on the Sunshine Coast back in 2001. I thought it prudent to set the record straight tonight as the minister has used this House to score cheap political points by providing only half a story. There was a false allegation made during the federal election in 2001 with respect to neighbourhood letters. What occurred from that event was as follows. On the Friday prior to the election I had a phone call from Channel 7 advising that an allegation had been made against me with respect to fraudulently signing a letter on behalf of Ms Anita Rew, who was 19 at the time of the allegation. At the time I was coordinating a neighbourhood letter campaign in support of the federal member. The people requested to sign the letters were locals and members of the Liberal Party or personal friends and supporters of the federal member. One claim was made that Ms Rew, who at the time was a good friend of mine, a work colleague and a member of the Young Liberals, advised the media that she was not, in fact, a member of the Liberal Party and did not sign the letter of support for the federal member. 28 Oct 2009 Adjournment 3001

Upon learning of the allegation and following the media beat-up, I made a statement to the Sunshine Coast police. I point out that I was never personally interviewed by the police; I submitted a written statement to the police and the media. Following the submission of my written statement, the matter progressed no further until 2009, some eight years later, when a minister of the Crown and his thugs were so desperate for a headline, so desperate to make the issue anything but the incompetent Premier and administration that we have in this state, that he had the intelligence to type my name into the Google search engine and find a Courier-Mail article contained on a Crikey website. Mr Fraser interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: Treasurer, go back to your seat. When is this government going to start confidently governing this state rather than coming into this place, abusing the processes of the Westminster tradition, all for the sake of scoring some cheap political points? Mr SPEAKER: Order! Treasurer, it will help the orderliness of the House if you want to interject, even though that is disorderly, if you do so from your own seat.

Townsville West Community Centre; TOTTS Ms JOHNSTONE (Townsville—ALP) (10.28 pm): On Thursday, 15 October I was pleased and privileged to officially launch the Townsville West Community Centre’s new Skilling Queenslanders for Work program, A New Day. Attending on the day was my great friend the member for Mundingburra; the CEO of the North Queensland Cowboys, Peter Parr; and players from the Townsville Fire basketball team and the North Queensland Fury football team. It was fabulous to see so many old friends there to support this important community project. Police liaison officers Linda Janetski and Anthony Stout, members of the management committee, including Graham Smalley and Greg Harris, and representatives from Townsville’s Youth Council were present. I commend the work of Townsville West Community Centre’s manager, Tara Harding, and A New Day’s program coordinator, Rebecca Askey-Doran, for putting together a quality program that is going to assist the people of Townsville West in obtaining and sustaining work. Participants who join in this project want to join the workforce or participate in the community, and the Townsville West Community Centre has organised a variety of accredited and non-accredited training to help them. This project will keep unemployed people motivated, self-confident and engaged in their search for work, and it will give volunteers the opportunity to gain accredited certificate courses which will enable them to maintain their volunteering positions under the new food-handling and alcohol service regulations. Participants will be able to join A New Day’s job club, externally enrol in TAFE computer courses, and attend weekly motivational and interest group workshops to assist them to build their networks, learn from each other and share their successes. During 2009-10 the Queensland government will invest $101 million in the Skilling Queenslanders for Work initiative to give an estimated 21,000 long-term unemployed and underemployed people job related assistance and skills training to maximise labour force participation and increase Queensland’s prosperity. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend the work of TOTTS in Townsville. TOTTS provides an essential transport service to seniors and people with a disability in Townsville. The services provided by TOTTS are simply staggering. For example, from 1 March 2008 to 28 February 2009 TOTTS undertook 16,905 trips in its fleet of eight vehicles. The fleet consists of one 24-seater bus, one 14-seater bus, one car and five station wagons. Those 16,905 passenger trips are the equivalent of 86,187 kilometres travelled over a 12-month period, purely for the purpose of creating inclusive communities for older people and people with disabilities in Townsville. Those figures speak for themselves. I was pleased to see the Minister for Community Services, Minister Struthers, in Townsville last Friday to hand over a cheque for $450,000 which will secure TOTTS’s future. Congratulations to Garth Harrigan and his entire team on a job well done.

Answers to Questions on Notice, Springbrook Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (10.31 pm): I wish to raise the issue of questions on notice not being adequately answered. The residents of Mudgeeraba are concerned that their issues are being ignored by this state Labor government. In particular, I would like to highlight the preference of the Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability to respond in a petulant manner instead of actually answering the questions asked. A number of questions on notice have been lodged regarding Springbrook, including: what were the valuations for the properties purchased by the Queensland government; what base is the government utilising to ensure current market value; what is the breakdown of which departments purchased those properties and the prices that were paid for them; and what properties have been leased back to the public? 3002 Adjournment 28 Oct 2009

The Beattie-Bligh government has spent $40 million buying up land in Springbrook to expand the Springbrook National Park. I state again, to make sure that the minister does not misinterpret my message: I and the residents of Springbrook are not against preserving this area or expanding the national park. Indeed, the residents would not have voted for me if I had not taken their concerns on board prior to the election. Despite repeated requests since the buy-up began, the residents have been kept in the dark about the methodology being used in the government’s purchases. In one instance the minister responded that the purchased property at 329 Repeater Station Road had not been leased. If that is the case, why do residents see persons entering and exiting this property as if they lived there? If the minister’s response is correct and the property is not being leased, has this government allowed persons to live on the property free of charge? If that is the case, why? Given the fact that this government has plunged our great state into an $85.5 billion economic black hole, it makes sense to rent those properties back to the public. So far there have been 43 purchases of properties in Springbrook. That would mean 43 fewer families on the waiting list for public housing if those homes were utilised instead of being left in disrepair. When one considers how much taxpayers’ money has been spent on purchasing land in Springbrook, the residents and voters of Springbrook have a right to know how this area will be managed. However, it seems that even this has to be shrouded in secrecy, which is fast becoming one of the personality traits of this government—secrecy and mistruths. Two years after it was announced that a reference group would be established, there is no evidence to show exactly what this group has done or if it has even met. I ask the minister: where is this much fabled management plan? What is the delay in tabling the plan and why is the minister keeping the residents of Springbrook in the dark and not letting those who will be affected by this document know where the plan is and what it contains? They have been waiting for over four years. The minister should stop the petulance and answer the questions. It seems that the minister can talk the talk, but she cannot walk the walk. Balmoral Bowls Club; Brisbane Sailing Squadron Ms FARMER (Bulimba—ALP) (10.34 pm): I would like to inform the House of the remarkable history of two sporting organisations in the Bulimba electorate. The Balmoral Bowls Club recently celebrated its 90th anniversary. This is an amazing achievement in anyone’s terms, particularly so given the declining membership being experienced by many bowls clubs across the state. The club still exists on the original site, using the same two greens and clubhouse that have been there from the beginning. It has 72 full members and 80 social members including Johnny White, who has been a member of the club for 50 years, and life member Ethel Elder, who is 86 years old and one of the former ladies presidents. The club’s honour board shows the history of members who have achieved significant success, including those who have represented their state. What it does not show is the commitment by the club to the local community, supporting organisations like the Rock’n’Roll Dancers, Life Stream, Apex and the Onward Motivational School for Artists. Recently I was privileged to join club members and members from a number of surrounding clubs to celebrate the 90th anniversary. I especially congratulate president Steve Burns and his committee on the wonderful day. Speaking of history, Bulimba also has the Brisbane Sailing Squadron. Earlier this month I was delighted to launch the Bessie Thorburn, the latest boat acquired by the sailing squadron. Bessie was a member of the club for 50 years, starting first in the canteen, where the ladies would support the sailors by providing food during competitions. For 30 of those 50 years she was ladies president and passed away only in the last decade. Bessie was the matriarch of a dedicated family of sailors. All of her children—John, who is now deceased, Jim, David, Bill and Malcolm—have been involved in the club in the past, and Bill and Malcolm are still active members. Bessie’s granddaughter Lauren is also involved, recently becoming the first female skipper to win the 16-footer club championship in 80 years of competition. The Bessie Thorburn was funded through a combination of money from the Gambling Community Benefit Fund and fundraising monies organised by Greg Morrison and Commodore Ross Boons. I congratulate this wonderful family dynasty and the dynamic club of which they are members. Eagle Heights Detox Facility; Maroon State School; Tamborine Mountain Little Theatre Mr McLINDON (Beaudesert—LNP) (10.36 pm): This morning it was disappointing to hear the Minister for Health talk about the relocation of the detox facility in Eagle Heights. I thank the member for Everton, the parliamentary secretary, for meeting with the relevant stakeholders in the lead-up to that decision being made. Unfortunately, I am concerned that there are no 24-hour emergency services on the mountain or in the Eagle Heights area. When the centre was based at Parklands it certainly made sense to have such services close at hand. 28 Oct 2009 Adjournment 3003

I want to put on record the good work that the Salvation Army does. It is unfortunate that it was left by itself on the front line to inform and consult with the community, rather than the government taking on that role. However, that being said, the decision has been made by the government and we will do the best we can to work with the Salvation Army to ensure this is a successful rehabilitation facility for people who are facing different trials and who are trying to get their lives back on track. I have concerns about the lack of public transport for families and loved ones who want to visit the facility. The electorate has had a win recently in relation to Maroon State School. I thank the Minister for Education for listening to my concerns and those of the community. I congratulate the community for making sure that the school was not mothballed. The school has only 14 students, but it is not just a school; it is a community. It is located in a huge growth area. The Bromelton State Development Area is about to expand. It is important that we keep open small schools, because they are going from strength to strength. The Maroon school forms the nucleus of its community. I congratulate the minister for that decision, and I look forward to making sure that the viability report ensures the school’s doors stay open as from next year’s report. I put on record the good work of the Tamborine Mountain Little Theatre, otherwise known as the Zamia Theatre. The Q150 celebrations funding was spent on installing two new dressing rooms and two stage bathrooms at the back of the theatre, at a total cost of $240,000. I congratulate President Brian Franklin and his committee for making sure that this project came to fruition. I will also put in a plug for the theatre company’s first play since the refurbishment. It will kick off next week. The play is Inspector Drake and the Perfect Crime. Furthermore, I will be investigating studies to enhance tourism in the Beaudesert electorate and to look at having some sort of Barossa Valley model from South Australia with the wineries, the hospitality and the bed and breakfasts that stretch from Mount Tambourine right through to Beaudesert and on to Boonah. I think that the hospitality and tourism in this area are certainly a hidden treasure. I look forward to working with the government and the community to ensure that we can put these beautiful wineries, the bed and breakfasts and all the hospitality that the Beaudesert electorate has to offer in the Gold Coast hinterland on the map. I think that is the key. Tourism in this area needs some CPR at this point in time. If we can get this off the ground, it will assist the local communities and the local economy.

Annual Arts Concert, Burpengary State School; Caboolture Multicultural Festival Mr RYAN (Morayfield—ALP) (10.39 pm): I would like to inform the House about some outstanding local events held recently in the Morayfield state electorate. Firstly, I was honoured to attend the recent annual arts concert at the Burpengary State School. The annuaI arts concert is now in its fifth year and is a highlight of the local creative arts events calendar. The audience was treated to a performance from all year levels. From the performance by the preppies to the performance by the year 7s, all performances were top class and proved to all members of the audience that the students and staff of the Burpengary State School are shining examples of the talent in our local area. I would like to particularly acknowledge the performances by the year 6 and year 7 students. The year 6 students gave a magnificent performance based on the 1963 children’s picture book called Where the Wild Things Are. Mr Wettenhall: Great book. Mr RYAN: It is a great book. The costumes were detailed, intricate and consistent with the original story. The choreography and musical contributions by the students were of the highest standards and impressed all members of the audience. Similarly, the performance by the year 7 students was brilliant. The performance was fun, engaging and involved the entire audience. I was impressed by the students’ ability to get the preppies and year 1s involved with their superhero presentation. I would like to specifically commend the principal, Mrs Passi; the concert’s producer, Mr Tattersall, who this year celebrates 25 years as a teacher—and what an outstanding achievement that is—the concert’s directors, Mr Ruhle and Ms Mellors; the costume coordinator, Ms Bunney; and the dedicated and talented teachers, staff and parents of the Burpengary State School. I would like to personally acknowledge the hard work of all the teachers for their valuable contribution to the learning of the young people of our area. Secondly, I was able to represent the Minister for Multicultural Affairs and the member for Pumicestone, Carryn Sullivan, at the Caboolture Multicultural Festival. This festival is another highlight of the local events calendar, and this year’s festival was strongly supported by the local community. Many people from the Caboolture region attended this festival and all enjoyed the wonderful food, entertainment, arts and crafts and multicultural displays. 3004 Attendance 28 Oct 2009

People from Chinese, Irish, Filipino, Mauritian and Pacific Islander cultural backgrounds were among the performers. The festival provides locals with a great opportunity to experience the cultural diversity which makes our community such a great place to live, to make new friends and to try new things. I would like to commend Ces Conte, his organising community and all the volunteers on their contributions to this year’s festival. Finally, I would like to wish the Caboolture 19 Halfway Town Neighbourhood Watch a very happy first birthday and commend them for their hard work. Question put—That the House do now adjourn. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 10.42 pm.

ATTENDANCE 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, Robertson, Robinson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Seeney, Shine, Simpson, Smith, Sorensen, Spence, Springborg, Stevens, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson