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 Tuesday, 13 April 2010

ASSENT TO BILLS ...... 1217 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 26 March 2010, from Her Excellency the Governor to the Speaker advising of assent to bills...... 1217 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 1 April 2010, from Her Excellency the Governor to the Speaker advising of assent to a bill...... 1217 REPORT ...... 1218 Auditor-General ...... 1218 Tabled paper: Audit Office: Report to Parliament No. 3 for 2010—Administration of Magistrates Court services in Queensland: a performance management systems audit...... 1218 SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS ...... 1218 150th Anniversary of ...... 1218 Pyke, Mr P; Actions by Former Member ...... 1218 Standing Order 254 ...... 1218 PETITIONS ...... 1219 TABLED PAPERS ...... 1219 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 1222 Shen Neng 1 ...... 1222 Floods ...... 1222 2018 Commonwealth Games Bid ...... 1223 Solar Energy ...... 1223 Queensland Health, Payroll System ...... 1224 Jobs ...... 1226 Kurilpa Bridge ...... 1226 Solar Hot Water Rebate Scheme ...... 1227 Schools Alliance Against Violence ...... 1227 Gateway Bikeway ...... 1227 Shen Neng 1 ...... 1228 Justice System Reforms ...... 1228 Tabled paper: Discussion paper titled ‘Criminal Justice Procedure in Queensland’, Department of Justice and Attorney-General...... 1229 Shen Neng 1 ...... 1229

J MICKEL N J LAURIE L J OSMOND SPEAKER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER Table of Contents — Tuesday, 13 April 2010

Youth Week ...... 1229 Child Safety ...... 1230 Tourism Queensland, Sustainable Regions Project ...... 1230 Pool Safety Laws ...... 1231 ABSENCE OF MINISTER ...... 1231 SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE ...... 1231 Report ...... 1231 Tabled paper: Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, Legislation Alert No. 5 of 2010...... 1231 SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS ...... 1232 School Group Tours ...... 1232 Question Time ...... 1232 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 1232 Queensland Health, Payroll System ...... 1232 Queensland Nurses Union, Political Donation ...... 1232 Solar Bonus Scheme ...... 1233 Queensland Nurses Union ...... 1234 Population Growth ...... 1234 Queensland Health, Payroll System ...... 1235 Health System ...... 1235 Queensland Health, Payroll System ...... 1236 Business Investment ...... 1237 Queensland Health, Payroll System ...... 1237 Solar Energy ...... 1238 Queensland Health, Rostering ...... 1238 State Schools ...... 1239 Warrego Highway ...... 1239 Local Government Reform ...... 1240 Taxi Industry ...... 1240 WorkCover ...... 1241 Port of Gladstone ...... 1242 MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST ...... 1242 Queensland Health, Payroll System ...... 1242 Walking to Freedom; Cancer Treatment Services ...... 1244 Heart Foundation Parliamentary Breakfast Forum ...... 1245 Shipping Industry; , Highway Upgrade ...... 1246 Home and Community Care Funding; Ipswich City, 150th Anniversary ...... 1247 Animal Cruelty, Turtles and Dugong ...... 1248 Population Growth ...... 1249 Springbrook ...... 1249 Tabled paper: Wanted poster for Premier regarding Springbrook Mountain...... 1250 Shen Neng 1 ...... 1250 Mary River Bridge, Tiaro ...... 1251 Cairns, Social Housing ...... 1252 CIVIL AND CRIMINAL JURISDICTION REFORM AND MODERNISATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1253 Message from Governor ...... 1253 Tabled paper: Message, dated 13 April 2010, from Her Excellency the Governor recommending the Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction Reform and Modernisation Amendment Bill...... 1253 First Reading ...... 1253 Tabled paper: Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction Reform and Modernisation Amendment Bill 2010...... 1253 Tabled paper: Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction Reform and Modernisation Amendment Bill 2010, explanatory notes...... 1253 Second Reading ...... 1253 RACING AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1256 Message from Governor ...... 1256 Tabled paper: Message, dated 13 April 2010, from Her Excellency the Governor recommending the Racing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010...... 1256 First Reading ...... 1257 Tabled paper: Racing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010...... 1257 Tabled paper: Racing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010, explanatory notes...... 1257 Second Reading ...... 1257 HEALTH LEGISLATION (HEALTH PRACTITIONER REGULATION NATIONAL LAW) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1258 Second Reading ...... 1258 SOUTH-EAST QUEENSLAND WATER (DISTRIBUTION AND RETAIL RESTRUCTURING) AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1259 First Reading ...... 1259 Tabled paper: South-East Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail Restructuring) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill...... 1259 Tabled paper: South-East Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail Restructuring) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, explanatory notes...... 1259 Second Reading ...... 1259 Table of Contents — Tuesday, 13 April 2010

HEALTH LEGISLATION (HEALTH PRACTITIONER REGULATION NATIONAL LAW) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1261 Second Reading ...... 1261 Tabled paper: Bundle of documents in relation to allegations about the treatment of patients at the Bundaberg Base Hospital...... 1272 Tabled paper: Portable USB memory stick...... 1272 Consideration in Detail ...... 1291 Clauses 1 to 14, as read, agreed to...... 1291 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 13 April 2010, to Mrs Jo-Ann Miller MP, Chair of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, from Hon. Paul Lucas MP, Deputy Premier and Minister for Health, in relation to the Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) Amendment Bill...... 1291 Clause 15, as read, agreed to...... 1291 Clauses 16 to 55, as read, agreed to...... 1291 Clause 56, as read, agreed to...... 1292 Clauses 57 to 66, as read, agreed to...... 1292 Clause 67, as read, agreed to...... 1292 Clauses 68 to 116, as read, agreed to...... 1292 Division: Question put—That clause 117 stand part of the bill...... 1293 Resolved in the affirmative...... 1293 Clause 117, as read, agreed to...... 1293 Clauses 118 to 120, as read, agreed to...... 1293 Clause 121, as read, agreed to...... 1294 Clauses 122 to 124, as read, agreed to...... 1294 Schedule, as read, agreed to...... 1294 Third Reading ...... 1294 Long Title ...... 1294 LAND TAX BILL ...... 1295 Second Reading ...... 1295 ADJOURNMENT ...... 1314 Redlands Electorate, Tree Planting; Redlands Electorate, Koalas ...... 1315 Mount Ommaney Electorate, Capital Works ...... 1315 ‘Pornification of Culture’ ...... 1316 Eimeo Surf Life Saving Club ...... 1316 Cleveland Electorate, Park-and-Ride Spaces ...... 1317 F/A-18F Super Hornets ...... 1317 Highland Park ...... 1318 Townsville CBD, Public Intoxication and Homelessness ...... 1319 Taringa Railway Station ...... 1319 Narangba Valley State High School, StarQuest ...... 1320 ATTENDANCE ...... 1320 13 Apr 2010 Legislative Assembly 1217 TUESDAY, 13 APRIL 2010

Legislative Assembly The Legislative Assembly met at 9.30 am. Mr Speaker (Hon. John Mickel, Logan) read prayers and took the chair. For the sitting week, Mr Speaker acknowledged the traditional owners of the land upon which this parliament is assembled and the custodians of the sacred lands of our state.

ASSENT TO BILLS Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have to report that I have received from Her Excellency the Governor letters in respect of assent to certain bills, the contents of which will be incorporated in the Record of Proceedings. I table the letters for the information of members. The Honourable R.J. Mickel, MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Parliament House George Street BRISBANE QLD 4000 I hereby acquaint the Legislative Assembly that the following Bills, having been passed by the Legislative Assembly and having been presented for the Royal Assent, were assented to in the name of Her Majesty The Queen on the date shown: Date of Assent: 26 March 2010 “A Bill for An Act to amend the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003, the Aboriginal Land Act 1991, the Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995, the Dividing Fences Act 1953, the Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990, the Forestry Act 1959, the Forestry Regulation 1998, the Forestry Plantations Queensland Act 2006, the Forestry (State Forests) Regulation 1987, the Land Act 1994, the Land Title Act 1994, the Mineral Resources Act 1989, the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971, the Survey and Mapping Infrastructure Act 2003, the Surveyors Act 2003, the Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act 2003, the Torres Strait Islander Land Act 1991, the Vegetation Management Act 1999 and the Water Act 2000 for particular purposes, and to make minor amendments of Acts as stated in the schedule for particular purposes” “A Bill for An Act to amend the Community Ambulance Cover Act 2003, the Duties Act 2001, the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000, the GST and Related Matters Act 2000, the Infrastructure Investment (Asset Restructuring and Disposal) Act 2009, the Land Tax Act 1915, the Pay-roll Tax Act 1971, the State Financial Institutions and Metway Merger Facilitation Act 1996, the Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990, the Taxation Administration Act 2001 and the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (Queensland) Act 2003 for particular purposes” These Bills are hereby transmitted to the Legislative Assembly, to be numbered and forwarded to the proper Officer for enrolment, in the manner required by law. Yours sincerely Governor 26 March 2010 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 26 March 2010, from Her Excellency the Governor to the Speaker advising of assent to bills [2007].

The Honourable R.J. Mickel, MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Parliament House George Street BRISBANE QLD 4000 I hereby acquaint the Legislative Assembly that the following Bill, having been passed by the Legislative Assembly and having been presented for the Royal Assent, was assented to in the name of Her Majesty The Queen on the date shown: Date of Assent: 1 April 2010 “A Bill for An Act to amend the Adult Proof of Age Card Act 2008, the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994, the Transport (New Queensland Driver Licensing) Amendment Act 2008, the Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995, the Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Regulation 2008, the Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994, the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994, the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, the Transport Operations (TransLink Transit Authority) Act 2008 and the Transport Planning and Coordination Act 1994 for particular purposes, and to make consequential or minor amendments of Acts as stated in the schedule for particular purposes” This Bill is hereby transmitted to the Legislative Assembly, to be numbered and forwarded to the proper Officer for enrolment, in the manner required by law. Yours sincerely Governor 1 April 2010 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 1 April 2010, from Her Excellency the Governor to the Speaker advising of assent to a bill [2006]. 1218 Speaker’s Statements 13 Apr 2010

REPORT

Auditor-General Mr SPEAKER: I have to report that I have received from the Auditor-General a report titled Report to parliament No. 3 for 2010—Administration of Magistrates Court services in Queensland: a performance management systems audit. I table the report for the information of all honourable members. Tabled paper: Queensland Audit Office: Report to Parliament No. 3 for 2010—Administration of Magistrates Court services in Queensland: a performance management systems audit [2008].

SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS

150th Anniversary of Parliament of Queensland Mr SPEAKER: Next month marks the 150th anniversary of the Queensland parliament’s first sitting. It is a remarkable anniversary—150 years of continuous electoral representation and democracy in Queensland. Following the creation of the colony of Queensland in 1859, elections were held and the members of our inaugural parliament then met for the first time on 22 May 1860. Our next sitting week in May will see numerous commemorative and celebratory events to mark this historic milestone. A schedule of all of these upcoming events has been placed on each member’s desk in the House and I welcome your participation in these celebrations.

Pyke, Mr P; Actions by Former Member Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, on Thursday, 25 March 2010, I drew to the attention of the House that in my absence it was reported to the Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Cook, on Tuesday, 9 March 2010 that during a protest rally outside Parliament House a former member of this House Mr Peter Pyke was present on the porte cochere balcony and held up a large placard in support of the protest rally. The former member was written to and afforded an opportunity to address this allegation. A reply has now been received. The former member in his reply admits to the conduct. I do not accept that the matters raised by the former member either excuse or justifiably mitigate the conduct involved. I am in no doubt that the former member’s actions constitute a contempt of the parliament and a breach of trust as a security cardholder. Rather than send this matter to the Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, I have decided to deal with it myself exercising the powers of the office of the Speaker. In doing so, I am cognisant of the former member’s apology and assurance that there will be no repeat of his conduct. I am conscious, too, of his circulation of material to the media defending his actions and his response to being called to account as a case of ‘Speaker v Pyke’—in other words, deliberately seeking to position himself against the Speaker and thus the parliament. That material was circulated prior to my receiving the material. Section 5 of the Parliamentary Service Act provides that the Speaker has control of the accommodation and services in the parliamentary precinct. As Speaker, as regards nonmembers, I have the power to exclude persons from the precinct. I also have the power to determine those persons who are provided privileged security access to the precinct. I have therefore decided to exclude the former member’s access to the precinct for three months from today’s date. I have also decided to suspend the former member’s security access to the precinct for one year from today’s date. This means that after three months the former member will be able to access the precinct but only as a member of the public.

Standing Order 254 Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, when I was elected Speaker a year ago, I urged the House to work with me to improve our standing in the community. I stressed that to do so was not just my task, but the task of each and every one of us. We have made progress, and have done so while preserving robust debate and allowing for interjections and exchanges across the chamber. That is healthy. It is a part of our tradition and the tradition of the Westminster model we broadly follow. I want that approach to continue. But when the line is crossed a firm stand must be taken. On the Thursday prior to the Easter recess the House found that the member for Burnett behaved in a way that was totally unacceptable. The standing of the whole parliament was diminished by the member’s behaviour, and it was made worse by the fact that it was unprovoked. The member was suspended from the House for seven calendar days. 13 Apr 2010 Tabled Papers 1219

What this incident has highlighted, however, is a defect in our standing orders. Standing order 254 only enables the House to suspend a member for a number of calendar days, up to a maximum of 14 days. In the case of the incident last sitting week, this means that irrespective of how deliberately disruptive and disorderly the member may have been, the maximum penalty the standing orders provided was effectively suspension from the chamber for the rest of that day’s sitting. The member was only ever going to miss the sitting day on which he was suspended because the House would not sit again for over two weeks. The penalty was, in my view, manifestly inadequate. I believe that standing order 254 should be urgently revised to change the period allowable for suspension from 14 calendar days to up to seven sitting days, including all non-sitting days between. This change would hopefully provide sufficient deterrent to prevent or at least seriously discourage the behaviour witnessed last sitting week. I am therefore asking the Standing Orders Committee to immediately consider revising the penalties that are available for grossly disruptive and disorderly conduct so that the existing inadequate provision in standing orders can be remedied forthwith.

PETITIONS

The Clerk presented the following paper petition, lodged by the honourable member indicated—

Palm Cove, Public Housing Mrs Menkens, from 220 petitioners, requesting the House to halt the current public housing proposal for Palm Cove and relocate the project to an area of demonstrated need which has appropriate infrastructure for the target population [2009]. The Clerk presented the following e-petitions, sponsored by the honourable members indicated—

Clayfield, 58 Riverton Street Mr Nicholls, from 106 petitioners, requesting the House to gift the land located at 58 Riverton Street, Clayfield to the Brisbane City Council for use as open space and park and to ensure that on the sale of the subject land (in the event that Government will not gift it to the Brisbane City Council) an enforceable covenant is included in the sale to ensure any subsequent use and development of the site be only for low density residential development under the terms of the Brisbane City Council City Plan for the locality (including any character housing requirements) and to oppose the sale of the subject land to any party for the purpose of development not in accordance with the low density residential designation in the Brisbane City Council City Plan [2010].

Palmview, Development Mr Bleijie, from 42 petitioners, requesting the House to ensure that the proposed Palmview Development does not proceed without appropriate infrastructure, including direct access to the Bruce Highway from the proposed Palmview Development and the removal of the proposed greenlink set to divide the master planned Sippy Downs community [2011].

Flagstone Creek Primary State School, Bus Service Mr Rickuss, from 197 petitioners, requesting the House to ensure that the Rockmount section of the Flagstone Creek Primary State School Flagstone/Rockmount bus run is reinstated immediately and move to ensure the policies of Queensland Transport and Education Queensland are aligned, specifically to formalise the bus run catchment to encompass the area of the Lockyer Valley Regional Council up to the shire boundary with the Regional Council [2012].

Surrogacy Bill 2009 Mr Foley, from 3,035 petitioners, requesting the House to amend the Surrogacy Bill 2009 so that Members of Parliament can be given a separate conscience vote on the issue of deliberately denying a child a mother and father [2013]. Petitions received.

TABLED PAPERS

PAPERS TABLED DURING THE RECESS The Clerk informed the House that the following papers, received during the recess, were tabled on the dates indicated— 26 March 2010— 1969 Response from the Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships (Ms Boyle) to a paper petition (1384-10) presented by Mr O’Brien from 53 petitioners regarding the inherent rights of Aboriginal Peoples and the status of the Aboriginal flag 29 March 2010— 1970 Document from the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade (Mr Robertson) titled ‘List of service providers without a registered drought management plan or exemption as at 1 January 2010’ 1971 Response from the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services (Mr Roberts) to a paper petition (1382-10) presented by Dr Robinson from 100 petitioners regarding police powers legislation 1972 Response from the Minister for Main Roads (Mr Wallace) to a paper petition (1368-10) presented by Mr Pitt from 1288 petitioners regarding the Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade and Cairns Transit Network options 1973 Response from the Minister for Main Roads (Mr Wallace) to a paper petition (1376-10) presented by Mrs Pratt from 395 petitioners requesting that the speed limit through Blackbutt and surrounding townships be lowered 1220 Tabled Papers 13 Apr 2010

1974 Response from the Minister for Main Roads (Mr Wallace) to a paper petition (1371-10) presented by Mr O’Brien from 208 petitioners requesting the installation of traffic lights at the intersection of Byrnes and Atherton Streets, Mareeba 1975 Response from the Minister for Main Roads (Mr Wallace) to an ePetition (1279-09) sponsored by Mr Gibson from 188 petitioners regarding the relocation of Main Roads Gympie staff to Maroochydore 1976 Response from the Minister for Main Roads (Mr Wallace) to an ePetition (1334-09) sponsored by Mr Knuth from 20 petitioners and a paper petition (1393-10) presented by Mr Knuth from 2764 petitioners requesting the upgrade of the intersection of East Evelyn and Millaa Millaa—Malanda Roads, via Millaa Millaa 1977 Quarterly Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations (1 October to 31 December 2009)— Activities carried out by the Queensland Workplace Rights Office 30 March 2010— 1978 The Queensland Compact—Annual Report 2009 31 March 2010— 1979 Manual for the National Tax Equivalent Regime, March 2010 (Version 7) 1980 Response from the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning (Mr Hinchliffe) to a paper petition (1328-09) presented by Mr Wellington from 1787 petitioners requesting the House to support amendments to Queensland’s Integrated Planning Act for a new definition of ‘community hospice guest house’ 1981 Brisbane Girls Grammar School—Annual Report 2009 1982 Board of Trustees Brisbane Grammar School—Annual Report 2009 1983 Ipswich Girls’ Grammar School and Ipswich Junior Grammar School—Annual Report 2009 1984 Ipswich Grammar School—Annual Report 2009 1985 Rockhampton Girls Grammar School—Annual Report 2009 1986 Board of Trustees of the Rockhampton Grammar School—Annual Report 2009 1987 Toowoomba Grammar School—Annual Report 2009 1988 Board of Trustees of the Townsville Grammar School—Annual Report 2009 1989 Central Queensland University—Annual Report 2009 1990 Griffith University—Annual Report 2009 1991 Queensland University of Technology—Annual Report 2009 1992 James Cook University—Annual Report 2009: Volume 1 1993 James Cook University—Annual Report 2009: Volume 2 1994 —Annual Report 2009 1995 University of Queensland—Annual Report 2009: Appendices 1996 University of Southern Queensland—Annual Report 2009 1997 University of the Sunshine Coast—Annual Report 2009 1998 Queensland College of Teachers—Annual Report 2009 6 April 2010— 1999 Response from the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services (Mr Roberts) to an ePetition (1325- 09) sponsored by Mr Ryan from 393 petitioners requesting the House to continue to support and adequately resource the vital role played by ambulance professionals 2000 Response from the Minister for Transport (Ms Nolan) to an ePetition (1263-09) sponsored by Mr Choi from 539 petitioners requesting the House to bring forward the promised delivery of the Eastern Busway to Capalaba as designed by 2012 8 April 2010— 2001 Response from the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr C R Dick) to a paper petition (1379-10) presented by Mrs Cunningham from 676 petitioners requesting the House to maintain the abortion laws as they presently stand 2002 Response from the Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability (Ms Jones) to an ePetition (1336-09) sponsored by Mr Fraser from 2606 petitioners requesting the House to introduce legislation in Queensland to ensure a 10 cent deposit/ refund for every drink container (glass, bottle, can, PET bottle, fruit drink and flavoured milk carton), in consultation with the drinks manufacturers 9 April 2010— 2003 Response from the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr C R Dick) to a paper petition (1391-10) presented by Ms Bates from 468 petitioners requesting the House to allow urgent medical care signs after dark and to stop discrimination against visiting patients in the common visitor car park at the Medical Centre, 238 Robina Town Centre Drive, Robina 2004 Report by the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning (Mr Hinchliffe) about the Minister’s decision, pursuant to section 3.5.33 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997, to cancel condition 166 in relation to a development approval—Development application by Co-You Australia Pty Ltd at Currumbin Creek Road, Hoffschildt Drive and Piggabeen Road, Currumbin 12 April 2010— 2005 Response from the Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability (Ms Jones) to a paper petition (1392-10) presented by Mr Dowling from 88 petitioners requesting the House to extend the designated mooring area within the Moreton Bay Marine Park at Redland Bay for a further one kilometre south of Point Talburpin, to enable the safe mooring of Queensland residents’ boats 13 Apr 2010 Tabled Papers 1221

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS The following statutory instruments were tabled by the Clerk— Parliament of Queensland Act 2001— 2014 Parliament of Queensland Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2010, No. 46 Explosives Act 1999— 2015 Explosives Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2010, No. 47 Explosives Act 1999— 2016 Explosives Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2010, No. 47—National Regulatory Impact Statement: Australian Code for the Transport of Explosives by Road and Rail—3rd Edition Building Act 1975, Sustainable Planning Act 2009— 2017 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2010, No. 48 Urban Land Development Authority Act 2007— 2018 Urban Land Development Authority Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2010, No. 49 Urban Land Development Authority Act 2007— 2019 Urban Land Development Authority (Vegetation Management) Amendment By-law (No. 1) 2010, No. 50 Forestry Act 1959, Nature Conservation Act 1992— 2020 Forestry and Nature Conservation Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2010, No. 51 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999— 2021 State Penalties Enforcement Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2010, No. 52 Criminal History Screening Legislation Amendment Act 2010— 2022 Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 53 Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000, Public Service Act 2008, Youth Justice Act 1992— 2023 Criminal History Screening Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2010, No. 54 Local Government Act 2009— 2024 Local Government (Postponement) Regulation 2010, No. 55 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999— 2025 State Penalties Enforcement Amendment Regulation (No. 4) 2010, No. 56 Aboriginal Land Act 1991— 2026 Aboriginal Land Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2010, No. 57 Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2009— 2027 Greenhouse Gas Storage Regulation 2010, No. 58 Stock Act 1915— 2028 Stock Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2010, No. 59 Sustainable Planning Act 2009— 2029 Planning and Environment Court Rules 2010, No. 60 Criminal Organisation Act 2009— 2030 Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 61 Casino Control Act 1982— 2031 Casino Gaming Amendment Rule (No. 1) 2010, No. 62 MINISTERIAL PAPERS TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial papers were tabled by the Clerk— Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services (Mr Roberts)— 2032 Australian Crime Commission—Annual Report 2008-09 2033 Response from the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services (Mr Roberts) to a paper petition (1394-10) presented by Mr Gibson from 1462 petitioners regarding police presence in the Gympie central business district to address incidents of assault on Friday and Saturday nights, including at taxi ranks Minister for Transport (Ms Nolan)— 2034 Response from the Minister for Transport (Ms Nolan) to an ePetition (1363-10) sponsored by Mr Gibson from 213 petitioners regarding go card system failures and the number of outlets that can sell go cards 2035 Response from the Minister for Transport (Ms Nolan) to an ePetition (1366-10) sponsored by Mr Wellington from 150 petitioners regarding the treatment of taxi drivers by taxi companies 2036 Response from the Minister for Transport (Ms Nolan) to a paper petition (1396-10) presented by Mr Wellington from 1072 petitioners regarding the treatment of taxi drivers by taxi companies 2037 Response from the Minister for Transport (Ms Nolan) to a paper petition (1389-10) presented by Ms Simpson from 35 petitioners regarding the fare increase, go card retail agents and system reliability 1222 Ministerial Statements 13 Apr 2010

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Shen Neng 1 Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.39 am): On Saturday, 3 April a coal ship, the Shen Neng 1, went aground on a coral shoal of the Great Barrier Reef. I rise today to update the House on matters surrounding the grounding of the Shen Neng 1 and to outline the ’s response to this unacceptable incident to date. The Queensland government acted swiftly to mitigate the impacts of the grounding and commence clean-up operations.

Marine Safety Queensland was alerted to the incident at around 7 pm on Saturday, 3 April. MSQ immediately activated arrangements under the national plan to combat pollution of the sea by oil and other noxious or hazardous substances. In doing this, MSQ has and continues to liaise closely with Maritime Safety Authority, or AMSA, and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The initial response actions included mobilising oil spill response teams in Brisbane, Gladstone and Rockhampton; airlifting an AMSA surveyor to the ship to inspect its condition and despatching AMSA’s vessel the Pacific Responder and MSQ’s vessel Norfolk to provide emergency response and logistical support; and using chemical dispersants to disperse a relatively small oil slick that was observed on the water at first light on 4 April.

I am pleased to inform the House that the Shen Neng 1 was successfully refloated just before 8 pm last night. Reports from the salvors are good in that the vessel is not taking on any water and is not leaking oil. The ship is now in safe anchorage near Barren Island and a plane and a helicopter have been monitoring the ship since first light this morning for any sign of any oil leaks.

I want to congratulate the authorities, particularly Maritime Safety Queensland, on their efforts to date. However, it is important to acknowledge that this is a very serious incident and we are not yet out of the woods. Divers will try to assess the damage to the vessel by getting under the hull in clear water this morning, but the weather forecast is for deteriorating conditions this afternoon with increasing winds. The national plan fixed-wing aerial dispersant capability remains on standby if required. The Queensland Police Service will continue to enforce a two nautical mile marine exclusion zone around the ship while it is at safe anchorage.

As this incident occurred in Commonwealth waters, an investigation has been launched by the relevant federal authorities, including the Australian Federal Police. I think there is no doubt that out of these investigations we will see some recommendations for state and federal governments to take further action to prevent this sort of incident happening again in the future. As I said last week, I think there is certainly a need for both governments together to look at improving vessel monitoring procedures and potentially extending the existing arrangements in Far North Queensland further south than currently occurs. Protecting the Great Barrier Reef is one of the highest order obligations of the Queensland and Australian governments, and we will do everything in our power to fulfil this obligation. I can also assure Queenslanders that we will explore every legal avenue available, based on the outcomes of the investigations, to ensure that the state is adequately compensated for any clean-up operations and those responsible for any wrongdoing are held to account.

In closing, I want to inform the House that the Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 will be introduced into the House later this week. That bill will include provisions to significantly increase the maximum penalties for the spilling of oil or noxious liquids and the jettisoning of harmful substances in Queensland waters, raising the fines and penalties from $350,000 for an individual and $1.75 million for a corporation to $500,000 for an individual and $10 million for a corporation. The message is very clear to those people who travel in Queensland waters: if you come into our waters and pollute them, the penalties will be among the stiffest and toughest in Australia.

Floods Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.43 am): Since the last sitting of the parliament more Queensland communities have experienced flood. Final flood warnings have been issued for the Nicholson and Norman catchments and Department of Communities outreach workers have been in the area since last week offering targeted relief to eligible people. A recovery team arrived in Burketown yesterday led by Emergency Management Queensland Acting Chief Officer Bruce Grady. They will be meeting with Acting Burke Shire Council Mayor Ernie Camp today to discuss the council’s draft recovery plan. I want to congratulate Ernie Camp and the Burke Shire Council and the rest of the local disaster management group. They have done a great job managing the flood response at a local level, and members will be aware that they faced very similar circumstances just on 12 months ago. 13 Apr 2010 Ministerial Statements 1223

They have been in daily contact with Emergency Management Queensland and EMQ has provided assistance as requested, including the use of helicopters for evacuations. I know the people affected by the floods have been doing it tough, and we will work with the council on the recovery effort. I want to thank the member for Mount Isa, Betty Kiernan, who has diligently kept my office fully informed of the flood situation. Betty has plenty of experience with disasters representing the seat that she does. She might have seen one or two in her time at the Dajarra pub as well, but I know that she will bring that experience to her new role as Parliamentary Secretary for Emergency Services, and I congratulate her on her appointment. 2018 Commonwealth Games Bid Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.45 am): I am pleased to inform the House that Queensland has formally signed its intention to bid for the 2018 Commonwealth Games on the Gold Coast. This is a once in a generation opportunity to host one of the world’s great events in one of the world’s great cities. A successful bid for the Games will create Games infrastructure that complements existing facilities and caters for future growth in one of our fastest growing regions. This will not only include new and upgraded sports facilities but improvements and upgrades to roads and other transport networks. As part of the bid development, we will now develop plans for a new velodrome, an upgrade of the Gold Coast Aquatic Centre and further works on the new Carrara Stadium to accommodate track and field competitions. This is a good investment for Queensland now and into the future. Firstly, it means jobs for Queenslanders—thousands of jobs. It is estimated that if the Games go ahead more than 30,000 jobs would be generated across a range of industries and across a number of years, including construction, manufacturing, recreation, cultural and business services. This is also an investment in first-class sporting infrastructure. The legacy of this investment means that the south-east of the state will continue to reap the economic rewards for years to come. For example, an international level velodrome means that the Gold Coast will be a magnet for major cycling events into the future and the infrastructure we build will also serve an important purpose to meet future housing demand. For example, the Games plan includes an Athletes’ Village at Southport which would then become high-density housing and office space as part of the Gold Coast health and knowledge precinct. What that means is affordable housing right next to the university, the new Gold Coast Hospital and the bus and train stop for the rapid transit system. That is important for key workers in a busy, growing city. I am pleased to advise the House that I have invited Mr Mark Stockwell to chair the bid committee, and he has accepted. This committee will guide development of the best bid possible for lodgement in May 2011. Mark Stockwell is a well-known Australian athlete—a swimmer at both Commonwealth and Olympic levels but someone who is also well respected in the business community and has participated in international bids before. Mark will build on the excellent work conducted over the past 18 months by the reference committee chair, Mr Bob Gordon, and his fellow committee members, whom I would like to formally thank today. I also acknowledge that this bid would not be possible without the endorsement of the Australian Commonwealth Games Association and will now be developed as a partnership, including the Gold Coast City Council. Just as the Brisbane 1982 Commonwealth Games was a watershed moment in our state’s history, I am very confident that Gold Coast 2018 will also be a major milestone for our state. Any bid of this nature requires a very long-term commitment over a number of electoral cycles and, in my view, a bid like this should never proceed without bipartisan support. So I therefore welcome today the support from the Leader of the Opposition for this bid, which I believe—and I think he shares my view— is a good investment for the Gold Coast and indeed for the whole of Queensland. Solar Energy Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.48 am): It’s official: Queenslanders love solar power! Over the past two years we have seen solar panels on Queensland homes increase from 1,200 systems to over 23,000 systems. In addition to solar PV panels, there are now more than 180,000 hot-water systems installed across Queensland. What that means is that there is now more than 250 megawatts of power coming from the sun here in Queensland. This is power that would otherwise have been drawn from coal fired power stations. To put this into context, the carbon being saved by this solar power is equivalent to removing 87,000 cars off our roads every year. In March 2008, our government announced the Solar Bonus Scheme—a scheme whereby if Queenslanders connected solar panels to the grid they would get 44c for every excess kilowatt they fed into the grid. At that time, we had around 1,200 systems on roofs. In just two years, more than 23,000 householders have signed up to take advantage of the scheme. We went into the election with an incentive to complement the federal initiative to deliver up to 200,000 solar hot-water systems across the state. Our government is clear: we want to make solar mainstream and we want to make Queensland the solar state of Australia. Today, we set a new solar 1224 Ministerial Statements 13 Apr 2010 goal for Queensland. That goal is to double the solar energy generation from its current 250 megawatts of solar energy to 500 megawatts by 2015. So the aim is to double our solar power within five years. What will that create? A virtual solar power station using some 500 megawatts of solar power. It is a virtual power station made up of the roofs of Queenslanders pumping out and using solar energy. Queenslanders can do the bright thing by harnessing the sun’s energy to deliver power city by city, town by town, business by business, school by school and home by home. We want to see solar from one end of the state to the other building, panel by panel, a virtual solar power station. Under this proposal, it will not just be your own panel on your own roof; your panel will be part of a solar network right across the state using the power of the sun. A virtual solar power station, of course, is not the same as a coal fired power station. It does not run 24 hours a day and it does not generate as much on a day like today when the sun is not shining. But the more solar energy we can produce on our rooftops the less we will rely on our coal fired electricity generators and the less pressure we will put on our network. Solar energy generated on our rooftops will help us avoid new energy infrastructure and building more carbon-intensive stations in the future. As members know, recently the Commonwealth government made the decision to change the solar program that underpinned our election commitment on solar hot water. Our government wants to do everything it can to make solar hot water more affordable for Queenslanders. Why? Because traditional electric hot-water systems can consume up to 30 per cent of total household electricity costs and add 25 per cent to the bill. So I am very pleased to outline to the House today the redesign of our solar hot water scheme. Under the new scheme, a rebate will be available for solar hot-water systems of $600 and, for low-income earners and pensioners, a rebate of $1,000 will be available. This rebate will be in addition to any other federal government or local government rebates that may apply over the life of the scheme. An amount of $60 million has been set aside in rebates for the solar hot water scheme, making it simple and easy for Queenslanders to save money on their household bills. It is not possible with a new program like this to forecast demand with precision, but we will be reviewing the funding allocated on a regular basis depending on demand. Any system purchased after today will be eligible for the rebate, with payments to customers starting after 1 July. The current cost range to supply and install solar hot water ranges from $3,800 to over $6,000. Prices in a free market, of course, are subject to change, but the challenge is for the solar hot water companies of Queensland to now deliver a competitive price to Queenslanders. With a state rebate for a pensioner of $1,000, a Commonwealth rebate of $1,000 and renewable energy certificates of around $1,300, the total of the possible incentives that someone seeking to switch to solar hot water might be eligible for comes to $3,300. That puts it into the much more affordable range for many Queenslanders. Our government is making sure that it has never been easier for Queenslanders to do the bright thing and switch to solar.

Queensland Health, Payroll System Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Health) (9.54 am): I would like to update the House on the serious issues that have arisen from the transition of Queensland Health to a new payroll system. I will go through the details shortly, but can I start by reiterating my public comments and my previous discussions with Queensland Health employees and their representatives. This simply was not good enough. It should not have happened and I take the issue very seriously. Again, I reiterate my apology and I know it has caused inconvenience and hardship for a number of our hardworking employees. This is not Queensland Health’s pay; it is our workers’ pay and that is why we need it sorted out now. The fact that the vast majority of people received their pay without problems means little to those very many individuals and families who have been seriously affected by these mistakes. Queensland Health has complicated payroll arrangements. In any average fortnightly pay cycle, Queensland Health pays 74,000 staff across 13 different awards and 13 agreements covering permanent full-time, permanent part-time, temporary and casual staff, including a large component of shiftworkers. In any average fortnightly pay cycle, Queensland Health processes $210 million in funds. Each day, Queensland Health undertakes 3,000 to 4,000 adjustments that reflect the 24-hour services that a health system provides. For example, in any normal pay period there will be adjustments when rosters change arising from the urgent call-in of medical staff to cover additional shifts, the swapping of a shift or a rostered shift not being performed, allowances for meal breaks, changes to acting arrangements and so on. Without prejudging the independent review of this rollout, it is abundantly clear that there are serious business practices that did not anticipate or make appropriate allowances for the change in data entry and the impact that that would have of staff receiving little or no pay. 13 Apr 2010 Ministerial Statements 1225

After the first pay run with the new system on 24 March, approximately 18,000 individuals were affected in some way, with 1,800 people identified as having received no or minimal pay. I am advised that all of these 1,800 staff have now had their pay processed. In total, this represented $14.5 million of funds that were affected in the first pay run. That represents approximately seven per cent of Queensland Health’s total pay run. With the approach of Easter, a hotline was set up to ensure that cases could be dealt with over the Easter break and payroll staff continued processing work over the long weekend. I would like to thank the administrative and payroll staff at the coalface and publicly acknowledge the contribution they have made. The second pay run was processed on 7 April 2010, and it was identified that some staff were not paid or received significantly less than they should have. On 8 April, 300 staff were identified as receiving no or minimal pay. Queensland Health committed that those employees identified by Queensland Health or through the unions would have their pay processed by the end of the following day. All 300 had their pay processed to the bank by close of business on 9 April 2010. Of those 300 staff, 296 have been personally contacted by Queensland Health payroll staff to ensure that they have been paid. As at 9 am on 11 April, there are four remaining staff who have not been able to be contacted, but attempts continue. In total, this represents $3.6 million of funds that were affected in the second pay run. This represents approximately 1.7 per cent of Queensland Health’s total pay run. Between 9 April and 9 am on 11 April, a further 82 staff have been identified as having received no or minimal pay, either by new people coming forward, follow-up contact with the hotline, or contact with payroll hubs. Between 11 April and 9 pm Monday, 12 April, a further 225 staff have been identified as receiving no or minimal pay or being in hardship. All of these staff have been personally contacted to arrange cash or confirm advice about electronic processing, depending on the preferences of the individuals and the urgency with which they require payment. These numbers will necessarily change as we are contacted or we identify other staff members who are unpaid or who are substantially unpaid. A number of preventive strategies are being used to reduce risk for the next pay cycle. Queensland Health has identified those casual staff who work regular patterns of work and have pre- emptively entered their rosters in the system. The core problem of rosters not being entered on time has also been addressed, with district CEOs and line managers proactively chasing the data needed and increasing the speed of the turnaround process to get it to our clerks. Queensland Health is also working with CorpTech to utilise a dummy payroll as a manual check of data to identify the anomaly of people receiving pay slips with nil pay. A key priority remains the support provided to individual staff who have been affected. Those who received little or no pay or who are experiencing hardship because of errors are being case managed to provide support and swift remedy. Once an error is identified, a payroll staff member discusses options with modes of payment including cheques, stored value cash-cards where the authorised officer accesses cash for a bank and then provides that cash for the person suffering hardship, and petty cash advances. More than one payment mode can be used, depending on the circumstances where more than $200 is required. I just note in passing that I saw it reported in the media that someone said they had to sign for something. It is for audit reasons that we require a signature against a payment. Each case identified as no or minimal pay or people affected by hardship is being individually case managed, including follow-up calls to confirm that payments are made. That provides important support and allows individual preferences for the staff affected. The hotline 36360737 continues to operate to provide easy contact for staff who are affected. Between Saturday, 10 April 2010 and 9 pm on 11 April, there were 199 registered calls to the dedicated payroll hotline. As incorrect pays are remedied and back pays are received, Queensland Health will also provide support to staff to explain upcoming pay slips. As back pays are reconciled Queensland Health is preparing help desks at hospitals for individual staff members who may seek further information or clarification of their particular pay slip. Throughout the payroll and adjustment process, if there are overpayments to staff they will be reconciled and handled appropriately—that is, any reconciliation and future adjustment will be handled in a fair and compassionate way. The Department of Premier and Cabinet has commissioned an independent external review to be undertaken by experts in these processes: KPMG. To be frank, we all know that the development of this system was a drawn-out process with a range of issues to confront. Queensland Health needed to replace its old payroll system which was on its last legs. As has been reported in the media, for example the Courier-Mail on 21 December last year, the old payroll system, Lattice, was failing. In the previous five years overpayments to staff of $27 million had occurred, clearly indicating the new system was needed. The development and implementation of new software on such a massive scale is always difficult. It is a matter of public record that the development and rollout of the new software system faced challenges including several delays. The project board identified and responded to issues throughout the term of the rollout of the payroll system, including software glitches, program delays and software quality issues, but frankly we want KPMG to have a look at that as well. 1226 Ministerial Statements 13 Apr 2010

Unfortunately, there was insufficient focus on the business practices on which the system would be operated. With hindsight Queensland Health acknowledges it has let its staff down by underestimating the challenges of commencing operation of the new system after the development work was complete. This is one of the key areas KPMG can investigate and Queensland Health is providing its full cooperation. Moving to a new system will see significant improvements for everybody in the longer term— individual employees and across government. As I said, the failure in this transition is simply unacceptable and I remain focused on supporting staff affected and improving the process in the future. Jobs Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development) (10.02 am): Last Thursday saw the release of the Australian Bureau of Statistics March 2010 job numbers. The data showed another decrease in the state’s trend unemployment rate, down from 5.6 per cent to 5.5 per cent for the month of March. This reduction in the unemployment rate has been achieved while still having the second highest participation rate in the nation and average population growth of around 2,200 people every single week. It was the eighth straight month that we have seen jobs growth—new jobs being generated in Queensland. There were 5,100 jobs created in the month of March, with 3,200 of those full-time jobs. Last month we were the jobs-generating capital of Australia, along with . One in four jobs generated in the nation last month were generated in Queensland. That brings the total number of jobs created over the last eight months to 34,900. Not only do we have one of the highest rates of population growth in the country; along with that we have one of the highest rates of labour force participation. That means that we always need to create more jobs and that is exactly what we are doing. We are doing it through our massive Capital Works Program; building hospitals, schools, ambulance stations, police stations and public housing that a growing population needs, providing economic stimulus to Queenslanders in the construction industry in regional economies in particular. We are stimulating employment through our suite of tax breaks, such as concessions for first home buyers, rebates for employers of apprentices and trainees, and maintaining the lowest payroll tax rate in the nation. We are giving those Queenslanders who need a helping hand a kick-start towards a new career through programs like the Green Army, Get Set for Work and other employment programs. At the last election this government promised to create 100,000 new jobs if re-elected. This was always going to be a tough task. But after a tough start we are on our way. The target now stands at 78,200. Twelve months in we have delivered a net new 21,800 jobs. Opposition members interjected. Mr FRASER: We know that those opposite do not like to work, but we were not aware of the fact that they do not like it when someone else gets work. With one year down and two years to go, this government has created more than 20,000 net new jobs. This is a government that remains committed to delivering 100,000 net new jobs. Kurilpa Bridge Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Information and Communication Technology) (10.04 am): As I have mentioned to the House before, the Department of Public Works takes great pride in designing and constructing infrastructure that meets the highest possible environmentally sustainable design benchmarks. Kurilpa Bridge is another example of Queensland’s team-breaking new ground. Since the bridge was officially opened by the Premier in October last year, around 30,000 cyclists and pedestrians have been using the bridge each week. Not only is the bridge an engineering marvel; it is extremely environmentally friendly, with around 75 per cent of the power required for Kurilpa Bridge’s lighting display powered by 84 solar panels. The sophisticated LED lighting can be programmed to light up in a myriad of colours, which can be adapted to celebrate Brisbane’s festivals and events. However, in most lighting configurations, 100 per cent of the power will be provided by solar with any surplus power returned to the main grid. This will amount to savings of around 37.8 tonnes of carbon emissions each year, which is quite an achievement. No other bridge in the world supplements its power to such a degree. It is unique in so many ways. I would like to point out that it was a project management team in the Department of Public Works that pushed for the addition of photovoltaic cells to this already impressive structure. It shows how seriously this government and this department takes the Toward Q2: Tomorrow’s Queensland target of reducing Queenslanders’ carbon footprint by one-third. This same dedication can also be seen in efforts to reduce power consumption in existing infrastructure. Public Works has a proud tradition of setting and achieving energy targets by retrofitting existing infrastructure and the use of energy performance contracts in government buildings. By the end of 2009-10, the energy consumption across the department’s whole building portfolio will be reduced by 21 per cent—an astonishing figure. Public Works is clearly doing its part to harness the sun’s energy to reduce our use of carbon based electricity. 13 Apr 2010 Ministerial Statements 1227

Solar Hot Water Rebate Scheme Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade) (10.06 am): I recently informed the House that the Queensland government would have to close the Queensland Solar Hot Water Program because of a significant reduction in the federal government’s solar hot water rebate with which our program was integrally linked. At the time I confirmed our intention to help all Queenslanders access the environmental and financial benefits of solar hot water. For the last few weeks we have been busy examining a range of options to help Queenslanders save on the costs of replacing an electric hot-water system with a solar system. We have gone out to the marketplace and consulted with industry bodies, suppliers, installers and local government to find out how we can best deliver our vision for Queensland. I am pleased to say that today the government has delivered. The new Queensland solar hot water rebate will provide many benefits. Firstly, for consumers: pensioners and low-income earners will be able to apply for $1,000 for a replacement solar hot-water system or a heat pump. All other residents can apply for a $600 rebate. What this means is that collectively, with our rebate and the addition of current federal government incentives, some customers may potentially save up to $3,300 off the cost of a new replacement system. They will also save by enjoying the benefit of lower electricity bills, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and playing their part in reducing their carbon footprint. Our rebate will give residents greater choice in determining what type of system and supplier they use. We would encourage anyone considering installing a system to shop around and get to know the market before making a purchase. We will be providing a few helpful hints on our website. This scheme will also provide another option for residents who may have missed out on the Queensland Solar Hot Water Program and we would encourage those residents to apply for the new rebate. Our rebate will also benefit the solar hot water industry, giving the industry a platform for growth during the next few years. It all starts from today. For further information we encourage interested people to look at our website at www.qld.gov.au on how to participate in our new Solar Hot Water Rebate Scheme. Schools Alliance Against Violence Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training) (10.08 am): The Queensland government is committed to ensuring all Queensland schools remain safe places for students to learn and teachers to teach. Parents can be assured that the Bligh government is committed to protecting Queensland children. In February this year the Premier and I announced the formation of the Queensland Schools Alliance Against Violence. The establishment of the alliance implements recommendation 10 of Dr Ken Rigby’s report into bullying. This report made a number of recommendations to the three school sectors about how to help stamp out bullying. The alliance is considering these recommendations. The alliance brings together stakeholders across the state, including parents, teachers and other professionals from the state, Catholic and independent school sectors. The alliance is focused on implementing best practice to improve responses to bullying, violence and harassment in our schools. Bullying continues to be an issue for school communities, despite the best endeavours by hardworking teachers and staff. At last week’s alliance meeting, all three Queensland education sectors, parent organisations and union representatives gave their full backing to an exciting proposal that will strengthen the Queensland approach to combat bullying. The Queensland government will be enlisting highly regarded adolescent psychologist and bullying expert Dr Michael Carr-Gregg to work with school communities across Queensland. The Action Against Bullying education presentations will include 30 sessions in 10 regions across Queensland to be held between May and August 2010. At each site there will be a presentation for principals and deputy principals, an afternoon session for school staff and an evening session for parents. The proposed series is an exciting opportunity to provide high-quality and engaging professional development to our school leaders, staff and parent community at no cost to schools. The Bligh Labor government is delivering on its promise to Queensland parents. Meanwhile, the Liberal National Party attacks the alliance of our three education sectors as a talkfest. Its only policy is to have police dogs roaming our school yards. Gateway Bikeway Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads) (10.10 am): Solar power— clean, green energy powered by the sun—will be used to light up parts of the Gateway bikeway for cyclists and pedestrians. In Queensland we are blessed with an abundance of sunshine and that means there is tremendous potential for Queensland to become a leader in the solar power stakes. By thinking outside the square and exploring all sorts of different ways to harness and harvest that sunshine, we can bring about a cleaner, greener energy future for all Queenslanders. 1228 Ministerial Statements 13 Apr 2010

We will be using solar energy on parts of the Gateway bikeway. In doing so, we will be saving up to 3,700 kilowatts of power every year. That comes down to stopping more than three tonnes of greenhouse gases from being released into the environment. Our solar lights will have the capacity to generate up to 14 hours of continuous lighting from dusk to dawn on sections of the Gateway bikeway. We will be lighting the way with solar. This is about saving energy and saving the environment. Solar powered lighting is a win for cyclists and pedestrians and a win for the environment.

We are building a state-of-the-art bikeway and pedestrian path across the new Gateway Bridge. This is a $36 million project that is expected to be up and running in June. It will connect local cycle networks in Nudgee, Nundah and Eagle Farm with the pedestrian and cycle paths in the great suburbs south of the Brisbane River—

Mr Reeves: Hear, hear!

Mr WALLACE:—while providing great views, top-notch facilities and rest areas. I take the interjection from the honourable member. I think he will be on those cycleways as soon as we open them up. Solar power will be used to light up parts of the bikeway. It is about a cleaner, greener energy future, and it is about encouraging Queenslanders to lead healthy, active lives. It does not get much better than that.

Shen Neng 1 Hon. RG NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (Minister for Transport) (10.13 am): There is still a long way to go before the Shen Neng 1 departs our waters. However, today a major step in the process has been to remove the damaged 230-metre carrier clear of our shoal. I put on the record my thanks to all authorities that to date have taken part in this carefully planned and executed operation. The last nine days have shown the considerable integration and coordination across the Department of Transport and Main Roads and other Queensland government departments. There has been integration and coordination across all levels of government. Particularly, I mention the hard work and preparedness of the Gladstone and Rockhampton regional councils. I thank everyone involved in the effort, from harbourmasters to marine engineers and wildlife volunteers. Their hard work and commitment to recovering the Shen Neng 1 and to protecting Australia’s greatest natural asset, the Great Barrier Reef, has been second to none. We are not out of the woods and the situation with the Shen Neng remains precarious, with weather set to deteriorate this afternoon.

I end by mentioning that this morning, while the Pacific Responder was towing the Shen Neng 1 to Great Keppel Island, it also responded to another mayday call from a vessel in distress. This reflects the complexity of the operations we deal with every single day in the safe and responsible management of our coastlines and waters. It is a task that we, along with the councils and the Commonwealth, are committed to hour by hour and day by day.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the Attorney-General, I welcome to the public gallery the Holland Park Ecumenical Care and Concern Committee from the Holland Park Central Uniting Church in the honourable gentleman’s electorate.

Justice System Reforms Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (10.15 am): I also welcome parishioners from the Holland Park Central Uniting Church and thank them for the mighty work they do in the Greenslopes electorate, particularly their tour leader, Mr Barry Smith. The Bligh government is a government of reform and, in November last year, we released a draft bill to reform Queensland’s civil and criminal justice system. The draft bill was prepared in response to the wide-ranging review of our justice system conducted by the honourable Martin Moynihan AO QC. Since the draft bill was released last November, the government has engaged in detailed and broad- ranging consultation, particularly with the legal profession, on the proposed reforms. I am pleased to inform the House that those consultations are now complete, and today I intend introducing a revised Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction Reform and Modernisation Amendment Bill into parliament. The revised bill reflects the outcomes of our consultation and acknowledges the complexities and the importance of the proposed reforms. As a result of our proposed changes, victims will see justice done sooner, prosecutors and courts will be able to focus on more complex matters, witnesses will benefit from fewer court appearances and defendants will wait less time for trial. I will expand further on the reforms later today during my second reading speech. Consistent with the recommendations of Mr Moynihan’s review, the government is now embarking on the second stage of our legislative reform process based on the report’s findings. 13 Apr 2010 Ministerial Statements 1229

Today I am pleased to announce the next phase of the reform process. The government has developed a discussion paper that outlines the second stage of reforms that we intend to undertake. The next stage will see an overhaul of legislation to consolidate, modernise and streamline criminal procedures and processes. I table the government’s public discussion paper, ‘Criminal justice procedure in Queensland.’

Tabled paper: Discussion paper titled ‘Criminal Justice Procedure in Queensland’, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2038]. The discussion paper contains a proposed framework for a new criminal justice procedure act for Queensland. It invites general feedback on this framework and the reform process, as well as raising some specific questions, such as consequential issues and other reform opportunities to provide increased efficiency and flexibility for Queensland courts and improved access to justice for Queenslanders. I encourage all honourable members, the legal profession, courts and the community to be involved in this consultation process. The Bligh government is committed to responding to emerging challenges and making decisions that help build a safe, modern and progressive Queensland. Change is ongoing and inevitable, and the Bligh government will continue to ensure that our justice system responds to and reflects a changing Queensland. These reforms are part of a broad, structured and staged reform agenda that will modernise and enhance the justice system in our state.

Shen Neng 1 Hon. KJ JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability) (10.17 am): While the overnight refloating operation at Douglas Shoal has been successful so far, we are not taking anything for granted when it comes to protecting our natural environment. The Department of Environment and Resource Management has had more than 30 officers in the region supporting and providing expert advice to all government agencies involved in the incident response and carrying out wildlife rescue preparations. Key considerations for the Department of Environment and Resource Management have included identifying the priorities for protecting the environment, particularly wildlife in the area; planning for the likely environmental effects of any oil spill reaching the shore or nearby islands; preparing for waste management of any oil recovered; and liaising with traditional owners. So far regular patrols by a number of agencies have not found any wildlife affected by the spill. However, the region is known as a large roosting site for birds and a major turtle hatchery. The Department of Environment and Resource Management has world-leading experts who cared for and successfully rehabilitated wildlife following the Moreton Bay oil spill last year and they continue to be at the ready if needed. Those staff were sent to Central Queensland and were using Heron Island as a base. With the successful anchorage of the ship, they are heading back to Gladstone to support any standby wildlife operations along the mainland coast. With the ship now refloated, today divers from the Department of Environment and Resource Management and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority will start assessing the damage caused to the reef. The experience gained in Moreton Bay has been put to good use and the recommendations that came out of a review of the operation are being implemented.

Youth Week Hon. KL STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (Minister for Community Services and Housing and Minister for Women) (10.19 am): From Carrara to Cairns and Maryborough to Mount Isa, the Bligh government is doing its bit to help celebrate Youth Week throughout Queensland. From what I have seen during celebrations that kicked off across the state on Saturday, Queensland can look forward to a strong future with so many active, bright young people around our state. The Bligh government recognises the wonderful potential young Queenslanders show, and that is why we are getting behind more than 25 events across the state and contributing $70,000 to help celebrate Youth Week under this year’s theme ‘Live it Now’. The theme offers a chance for young people to showcase their talents and achievements, put forward views and ideas, participate in new activities, learn new skills and make a difference to the lives of people throughout Queensland. Celebrations have just started but I have already seen firsthand the great things young Queenslanders can offer this state. At the invitation of the member for Capalaba, I attended the Youth Day Out in Redlands, where I saw young people showcasing their talents in the entertainment and sporting fields. At the official launch of the YMCA Queensland Youth Parliament here on Saturday night, I was impressed to meet with more than 100 young people as they prepared for a youth parliament in September, when they will take over this House, researching and debating issues that are close to their hearts. I met young Indigenous people like Elsie Wall, the youth member for Murrumba, and Tenille Dunbar, the youth member for Dalrymple, who I encouraged to nominate after meeting her at the Mareeba community cabinet. 1230 Ministerial Statements 13 Apr 2010

There are more Youth Week events to follow this week. I will be attending the Left Right Think- Tank here at Parliament House today, when young people will be given another opportunity to discuss and debate important issues to young people throughout Queensland. Whether it is taking part in the Cairns Indigenous Youth Summit, enjoying the Charleville Live It Up Youth Festival or exploring the issue of youth homelessness at the National Youth Homelessness Matters Day on the Gold Coast on Wednesday, the Bligh government is giving young people a chance to have their say and live it now.

Child Safety Hon. PG REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Sport) (10.21 am): It has now been just over 12 months since I became Minister for Child Safety. I have been getting on with the job and have been out there at the grassroots level consulting with communities about child safety matters. The Bligh government has a plan for the future. Our vision Toward Q2: Tomorrow’s Queensland represents this government’s objectives for the community through five ambitions—smart, healthy, green, strong and fair. In our community every child has a right to grow up in a safe and loving home and the Bligh government is working hard for Queensland’s vulnerable children and young people. Unfortunately there are times when children need to be removed from their home for their own safety. It is our dedicated child safety officers who are on the front line making tough decisions, and I have visited all of the 50 child safety service centres around the state, meeting the hardworking staff who support Queensland’s children and young people. The Bligh government has invested $638 million in funding to child protection and related services this financial year. Since 2004 we have tripled the budget and doubled the workforce of Child Safety. We have delivered the greatest adoption reform in the state in 45 years. We are working to drive down the number of Indigenous children in out-of-home care and have refocused our investment towards family support and early intervention for Indigenous families. The amount of $7.9 million will be invested to provide greater family support services. This could include in-home help, assistance with budgeting and addressing domestic violence and alcohol and drug concerns. Services will be rolled out across the state this year to make sure we can address the challenges Indigenous families face early on. The other $7.9 million will continue to be provided for recognised entities’ statutory function to ensure that they can continue to fulfil their role in providing cultural advice when Indigenous children do have to be removed from their home. I have held recent meetings with local Indigenous organisations across the state. The Bligh government is also investing almost $47 million in 11 safe houses in rural and remote areas. Two of these services are already open in Doomadgee and Napranum, and these houses are providing community based, residential care and family support services for Indigenous children and families in remote communities. This government also supports 50 family intervention services across the state to help Queensland families. Family intervention services provide practical, common-sense assistance to help parents provide a safe home for their children. I will continue to work hard to better protect Queensland’s vulnerable children and young people.

Tourism Queensland, Sustainable Regions Project Hon. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading) (10.24 am): In July last year, I launched Tourism Queensland’s pilot Sustainable Regions Project—the first state-wide sustainable tourism project implemented in Australia. Today, I am happy to report some positive results for this pilot campaign. The project was aimed at reducing the environmental impact of tourism in the five chosen regions—Winton, North Stradbroke Island, Airlie Beach, Magnetic Island and Pioneer Valley-Cape Hillsborough. Not only is this promoting a responsible environmental message; it will encourage visitors to view Queensland as a sustainable tourism destination, giving them what is essentially a ‘guilt-free’ holiday. The pilot phase of this program has been a great success, and I had the opportunity to congratulate 19 tourism operators on Magnetic Island on Friday for being involved. Some of the outcomes include carbon footprints being completed for 38 Queensland tourism businesses; almost 70 Queensland tourism businesses making a commitment to sustainability and planning to reduce their combined carbon footprint by 1,173 tonnes of CO2—the equivalent of 273 cars off the road for a year—and operators investing in new green initiatives. For example, the Big Red Cat ferry service to North Stradbroke Island has already reduced its energy bill by 35 per cent through changes to its timetable, Cape Hillsborough Nature Resort aims to reduce its hot-water system’s energy use by 75 per cent, and businesses at Airlie Beach’s Abel Point Marina have joined forces for a joint recycling program. 13 Apr 2010 Scrutiny of Legislation Committee 1231

In addition, Winton Shire Council is undertaking energy audits of all council facilities, and tourism operators on Magnetic Island are looking at ways they can reduce their water, waste and energy including with the use of solar panels to generate renewable power. For example, Ergon Energy, with support from Townsville City Council, is currently investigating the development of a 100-kilowatt solar park on Magnetic Island. These are just some of the great results of this innovative program which have been achieved through collaboration, inventiveness and a passion for change. Tourism Queensland has worked closely with regional tourism organisations, local councils, consultants and tourism operators on this project and will continue to investigate ways this initiative can be rolled out across the state to make Queensland the truly sustainable tourism destination. Pool Safety Laws Hon. SJ HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) (10.26 am): Today I invite Queensland pool owners to have their say on a regulatory impact statement for the proposed second stage of the state government’s tough new pool safety standards. The statement lists the benefits and the costs of the draft pool safety standards ahead of their expected introduction in December. The draft second stage of the state government’s pool safety regulations could see pool safety inspections included at the point of sale or lease, greater powers of entry for council pool inspectors, fences for all portable pools deeper than 300 millimetres, the phase-out of child safety doors that form part of a pool barrier and the broadening of laws to include indoor hotel-motel, caretaker residence and caravan park pools. The release of the regulatory impact statement follows the introduction of stage 1 of Australia’s toughest new pool safety laws on 1 December 2009. The Bligh government asked an expert committee—including Kidsafe, the Royal Life Saving Society, the Queensland Injury Surveillance Unit and the Local Government Association of Queensland—to conduct the most exacting review of pool laws in nearly 20 years. The committee released a consensus report with 23 findings, all of which will be implemented. The Bligh government is not prepared to take risks with the safety of young children around pools. Last year alone, eight children drowned in Queensland pools. In the last six years, 35 children have drowned in the state’s residential swimming pools. In addition, it is estimated that 50 children a year present to emergency departments for immersion injuries, some of whom suffer brain damage due to lack of oxygen. Parents remain the first line of defence. They must always watch their kids around water and teach them how to swim from an early age. In addition, I encourage all Queenslanders to undergo a CPR course. The Bligh government is determined to help prevent these drownings and near drownings. The draft laws will see almost 70 per cent of Queensland pool owners required to undertake some upgrade work within five years, or earlier if the property is sold or leased, to ensure their pools comply. The estimated average cost for pool owners to upgrade a fence to meet the new standard has been estimated at $430. Similarly, where pool owners do not comply with existing pool safety requirements, the average cost has been estimated at an additional $730. The bulk of the cost estimates contained in the regulatory impact statement are the maintenance costs for people to upgrade their pools in order to meet the pool fencing standards they should already be meeting now. If one child is saved or protected from injury as a result of these new measures, the costs will be worth it. The release of the regulatory impact statement for public consultation will give pool owners time to have their say and prepare for the second stage of the Bligh government’s tough new swimming pool safety standards. The regulatory impact statement, outlining the fine detail of the new safety standards, will be available for public comment from the Department of Infrastructure and Planning’s website until 16 May.

ABSENCE OF MINISTER Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.29 am): I wish to advise the House that the Minister for Education and Training will be absent from the House on Thursday. Minister Wilson will be in for the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs. The minister will also be representing the Minister for Community Services and Housing and Minister for Women on youth affairs matters at the meeting.

SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

Report Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (10.29 am): I table the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s Legislation Alert No. 5 of 2010. Tabled paper: Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, Legislation Alert No. 5 of 2010 [2039]. 1232 Questions Without Notice 13 Apr 2010

SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS

School Group Tours Mr SPEAKER: For this morning’s session of parliament we will be visited by the Ferny Hills State School in the electorate of Ferny Grove. Question Time Mr SPEAKER: For the information of all honourable members, for questions without notice today, because of an arrangement with the opposition, there will be two Independent questions in series today.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Queensland Health, Payroll System Mr LANGBROEK (10.30 am): My first question without notice is to the Minister for Health. When the minister was advised that the nurses pay scandal had left thousands of health workers without their pay packets, the minister refused to be awoken from his lull, with his department telling nurses to seek charity and his office defending the minister’s absence, saying that it would have to be a major drama for the minister to step in. I ask: will the minister guarantee that all payments including back pay will be correctly made next payday? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question. This is an extremely serious matter. The Leader of the Opposition is right to ask me a serious question in relation to the matter. I see the matter of our staff’s pay as being of critical importance to them. I am not responsible for what someone says to a media outlet without my knowledge. Having said that, the very issue of nurses’ pay—workers’ pay—is something that is critical to us. Each fortnight we have about a $210 million payroll, and a very complex one at that. There are 13 different awards—13 different agreements—with people called in at short notice and the like. Indeed, in any payroll, regardless of whether it is under the new system or it was under the old system, there are significant numbers of adjustments that are needed to be made by the very nature of the Health payroll. I treat it extremely seriously. We are putting significant resources into dealing with this matter. We are also putting significant resources into working with KPMG to establish what we can do better and what might be achieved in the future. This is a system that will probably need to be rolled out in other government departments. Frankly, to have a situation where there was insufficient ability for people to check issues and clearly insufficient time for people to enter data is a real problem for us. I particularly thank our hardworking staff: our clerical people in payroll and HR who have been working under enormous pressure to catch up on the backlog of data, to put it all in there so people can be appropriately paid. It is not acceptable that our staff are not paid appropriately on time. I make the point that each pay cycle we do have adjustments, and those adjustments are made independently of that pay cycle. That is the nature of a very large and complex system. It is not good enough that people were not paid. This is about fixing the issues not only now but also for the future. I want Queensland Health to take every step possible to make sure that, as far as possible in the next pay run, we avoid any problems. That said, KPMG is looking at the work that we are doing in relation to the next pay run to make sure that it, as far as possible, can provide some input in relation to that. But I will make it clear: in any pay run in Queensland Health we do have to do a significant number of adjustments, regardless of whether it is this system or the previous system. Queensland Nurses Union, Political Donation Mr LANGBROEK: My second question without notice is to the Premier. When it came to protecting the Premier’s job at the last election, the bosses of the Queensland Nurses Union robbed the pay packets of nurses and gave $191,000 in donations to Labor. In light of Labor’s nurses pay scandal, will the Premier do the only honourable thing and give the money back to nurses? Or does the Premier insist Labor deserves to keep this $191,000, telling nurses who cannot afford to put food on the table to eat cake? Ms BLIGH: Mr Speaker— Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on my right will cease interjecting. Mr Lawlor interjected. 13 Apr 2010 Questions Without Notice 1233

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable Minister for Tourism will cease interjecting. I call the honourable the Premier. Ms BLIGH: Mr Speaker, you do not have to scratch the surface very far with those opposite to find anti-unionism. There was an assumption underlying the question and there was the tenor in which it was asked. We heard the word ‘robbed’ from nurses, as if nurses are not capable of making their own decision about what their union will and will not affiliate to. I am very happy to advise the House that in the Queensland Nurses Union members are given an option to opt in to affiliation with the Labor Party. Those nurses who have made that decision have made it of their own free will in a democratic society where freedom of association is a long-held value that was once championed by the Liberal Party. The right of nurses in Queensland to be a member of a trade union is a right that is recognised and upheld by the . The right of that trade union under the laws of Queensland to make donations to whomsoever it wishes is a right that it is entitled to and one which is respected by this side of parliament. Why would the Queensland Nurses Union have made a donation in the last campaign? Because it knew that if it did not there would be a three per cent cut to the health and hospitals budget of Queensland. Opposition members interjected. Ms BLIGH: They do not like it, Mr Speaker, but they have committed to it every time they stand up in front of the business community. They went to the election saying, ‘We will cut public sector spending in every department by three per cent.’ What does a three per cent cut in Health mean? It means fewer nurses, fewer orderlies, fewer wardsmen, less equipment and fewer opportunities for the members of the Queensland Nurses Union. The members of the Queensland Nurses Union and those nurses who are not members of the union and every other employee of Queensland Health are entitled to be paid, and they are entitled to be paid their full wages. It is totally unacceptable that there has been a problem in this system. I apologise to every employee of Queensland Health, but I will never apologise for defending the democratic right of any Australian to join a union and to be involved in the political process.

Solar Bonus Scheme Mrs SULLIVAN: My question without notice is to the Premier. The government’s Solar Bonus Scheme started on 1 July 2008. Can the Premier inform the House what has been the take-up of this initiative? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for Pumicestone for her interest in this issue. As I said earlier in my ministerial statement, I am very pleased to advise that we have had an outstanding take-up on this program. The member for Pumicestone I think will be very interested to know just how many of her constituents have embraced this. In fact, 559 households in the electorate of Pumicestone are now being powered by solar power from photovoltaic equipment on their rooftops. The Pumicestone electorate is one of those that have embraced this with more vigour and more enthusiasm than just about any electorate in Queensland, so I congratulate it. When we initiated the Solar Bonus Scheme, which is a net feed-in tariff of 44c a kilowatt hour, we had just 1,200 solar PVs on Queensland homes. We introduced that program in July 2008. Since then, in less than two years, we now have almost 23,000 Queensland householders signed up and reaping the benefits. What are the benefits? First of all, they are reaping the benefits of generating their own power and seeing a cut to their electricity bills, but for those who have generated surplus power and have put it into the grid they have received money back. So far, in less than two years, we have seen $3½ million paid out in credits on electricity bills to Queenslanders who have entered this scheme. We have seen 6½ thousand new customers sign up this year alone. Just seven months ago the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, Mr Robertson, and I together launched the Queensland Renewable Energy Plan. In that plan the government set a goal of generating 40 megawatts from solar PV by 2020. It was a modest target, but at the time we thought that was still going to be a stretch for us. I am happy to advise the House that in just nine months we are now generating 36 megawatts of power. That is a target we will have to revise. We set ourselves a 10-year challenge to get there and we are almost there within nine months. That is a testament, I think, to the enthusiasm with which Queenslanders are embracing solar power. What did the LNP have to say about the Solar Bonus Scheme when it was introduced in this parliament? I remember a litany of whingeing. I remember the moaning and whingeing we heard about the Solar Bonus Scheme. Those who were here remember it. We heard the usual—that it was not long enough, it was not high enough, it was not big enough. As usual, they have been proved wrong. We had the usual list of those from the LNP expressing doom and gloom. Those opposite were whingeing and moaning. Queenslanders did not listen and they have voted with their feet. They are generating solar. (Time expired) 1234 Questions Without Notice 13 Apr 2010

Queensland Nurses Union Mr SPRINGBORG: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. Nurses everywhere are questioning whether their union bosses have really stood up for them during Labor’s nurses pay scandal that has left almost 4,000 nurses and health workers out of pocket. Given that the nurses pay scandal has now gone on for over one month, will the minister now reveal on what date the boss of the Nurses Union, Gay Hawksworth, personally called him to intervene to make sure her members got a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work? Mr LUCAS: I have had repeated discussions with all of the principal unions involved with Queensland Health staff, including repeated discussions with Gay Hawksworth who has made her views known to me in no uncertain terms. What is more, she has done so publicly, as have a number of her colleagues. The way that those in the opposition respond to an issue that is clearly unsatisfactory is to get stuck into the Nurses Union. Frankly, the Nurses Union is not responsible for the payroll. The Nurses Union has made it critically clear that this is unsatisfactory. It has made it critically clear in terms of passing on concerns when people have rung in and in terms of wanting to monitor how things were going, as have other relevant unions as well. That is their job. I want to make it crystal clear again that it is not good enough that this has happened. It is not good enough that people have not been appropriately paid. That has to be fixed. The buck ultimately stops with Queensland Health and I am the health minister. I accept responsibility to sort this out—not the Nurses Union, me. That is what the situation is. Those opposite say that this has something to do with the Nurses Union when all it has been doing is advocating very strongly and forcefully for its members. I will say this about the Nurses Union if those opposite want to talk about the value for money that its members get out of their union: it has negotiated amongst the best pay conditions for any nurses in Australia because our nurses deserve it. Our nurses also deserve to be paid properly and accurately. That is what we are working on. Population Growth Mr CHOI: My question without notice is to the Premier. Premier, two weeks ago the Queensland Growth Management Summit was held. Can the Premier advise the House about the feedback received from major stakeholders concerning this very important event? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. I thank him for his interest in this area. He was one of the members who really took up the opportunity during the Growth Management Summit to talk to his constituents. He held a population forum in his own area. I congratulate him for doing so. At the recent Growth Management Summit we saw almost 240 people come together from right across Queensland. We got a very strong message from that summit about the need for the government to have a sharper focus on implementing the South East Queensland plan, which generally received very strong support right across the breadth of opinions that were presented. Without a doubt, the strongest message, on which I think there was the most consensus, was the support for greater regionalisation of Queensland because it creates more opportunities for regional Queensland and takes the pressure off the south-east corner. That is why the government has announced a new role for the Urban Land Development Authority in regional Queensland and why we have committed to develop a Queensland regionalisation strategy. We announced three new urban development areas for new affordable housing and for development—Townsville, Mackay and Gladstone. All three of them are major regional centres experiencing population growth. I am very pleased to share with the House some of the comments from some of the participants. Bundaberg mayor, Lorraine Pyefinch, said that her region’s vacancy sign is still well and truly up. She said— We see strong population growth as a way forward. The more working families we can get to our region the better. Rockhampton mayor, Brad Carter, said that he was impressed by the government’s plans. He said— We have the land, we have the water and we have the lifestyle to attract people in great numbers. Mr Schwarten: Hear, hear! Ms BLIGH: I am sure the member for Rockhampton would agree. The Maranoa mayor, Rob Loughnan, said that the summit was a valuable chance for him to talk to senior government officials. He said— There was a good understanding that the resource sector isn’t just about plundering from the regions. And our message is that our region is open for business and you could never pick a better time to visit. 13 Apr 2010 Questions Without Notice 1235

The Queensland Farmers Federation, along with a myriad of other stakeholders, said— QFF participated in the growth summit. While the outcomes are still intangible, it is at least pleasing to see the Premier taking a leadership role in recognising the importance of planning for growth in our regions. I welcome the comments from the member for Condamine who supported the summit saying— It is an opportunity for the public to voice their ideas and share their thoughts and be part of an exciting, proactive time in the history of Queensland. I thank the member for those comments. Unfortunately, his positive attitude was not shared by the Leader of the Opposition who declined to be involved. He said that it was not something he was interested in. Queenslanders are searching for one thing he is interested in. He is interested in moaning. He is interested in criticising. He is interested in whingeing, but nothing else. Queensland Health, Payroll System Mr McARDLE: My question is to the Minister for Health. After implementation of Labor’s failed $40 million health payroll system, payroll staff had to work up to 27 days straight, claiming up to 20 hours overtime a week to sort out the mess. What is the total cost of overtime to be paid to payroll workers who have been left to clean up the scandal? As a consequence, how many procedures will be scrapped or delayed? Mr LUCAS: I would have thought the honourable member would understand this, but he does not, of course. We need to have a functioning and appropriate payroll system and HR administrative systems to support an organisation as large as Queensland Health. The previous system, Lattice, as he knows, was no longer supported and therefore to suggest that the costs expended in transferring over to another payroll system are wasted costs is ridiculous. What is important is that clearly Queensland Health did not have an appropriate transition strategy for that data entry. What is clear about it is that it did not have the appropriate number of people to do this. How does it do that? It employs more people. What happens if they employ more people? That costs more. That is self-evident. What we would not do is retain a whole lot of staff permanently for the transition phase. Clearly with the transition phases of these sorts of things it would need to call on additional staff resources, including additional staff and casual staff. If Queensland Health could be criticised for something—and there are many things in relation to that one might say—it is that it did not expend sufficient money in relation to staff to input the data; it is not your complaint that we are actually employing people to do it. That is why we are having it investigated. Clearly, the honourable member thinks that the way to do that is with volunteers such as he did with his mental health policy. Clearly, those staff are being paid to do the data entry and there should have been sufficient allowance made for staff to do the data entry. KPMG will do a review of this and we will, in light of that, see what changes need to be made, because this system will be rolled out not just in Queensland Health but ultimately, when the Premier is happy with it, in other areas as well. There are key learnings that we have to make as a result of this. But make no mistake: Lattice was no longer supported and there was a need to transfer to a new system. Clearly, it was far from perfect. Clearly, when we talk about people not being able to enter in sufficient data and people not being able to contact anyone when they had a query with things, that is a question of the quantum of resources being thrown at it and the member is then actually complaining about it. That is ludicrous! Health System Ms O’NEILL: My question is to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health. Can the Deputy Premier please outline the importance of positive policy development in the context of national health reform? Mr McArdle interjected. Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question. The member for Caloundra interjected then, and well may he because under he did nothing in terms of the decline in federal funding from 50 per cent to 38 per cent of the health share. What do members think happened? It did not match the state growth in funding and therefore as a share it went from 50 per cent to 38 per cent. That means fewer nurses employed due to John Howard. The increase of interns from 250 in 2005 was a direct result of ’s intervention which was later then supplemented by the federal government. This year we have 556 interns in our health system and next year we will have 644. So you silly person! How would you dare interject on that? We have advocated for reform in relation to all aspects of the health system time and time again. By 2050 the population of Australians aged over 85 will quadruple. The health task is increasing. Over the 10 years from 1997 to 2007, PBS prescriptions increased 31 per cent and the population of Australia increased 11 per cent. Things cannot go on as they are. What was the opposition’s response? It moved 1236 Questions Without Notice 13 Apr 2010 a motion here during the 5.30 debate seeking access to cabinet documents from 1992 to 1995—even before it was last in government. What is the Premier’s response? Deal with the Prime Minister about how to get the best deal for Queensland. In fact, I was with the Premier when she had the meeting with and she talked about the aged-care sector being a particular problem in Queensland. Every night, on average, 360 beds in our hospitals are occupied by people who should be in aged-care facilities. Kevin Rudd listened to us on that. His announcement in relation to low-interest loans, his announcement in relation to streamlining HACC and his announcement in relation to providing funding for extra places are all as a result of helpful and significant input from the Queensland Premier. We will do that to deliver for the people of Queensland. There is more to go on aged care. We do need to increase funding for aged care but, as I have said time and time again, with the exception of the member for Gregory, in all the time I have sat here when there have been federal tory governments those opposite never, ever once called on them to come to the party. We will call on Kevin Rudd to deliver the best thing for Queensland and we will also work cooperatively to get the best possible deal. The aged-care announcement is a classic example of this Premier leading the debate in the country about what to deliver when it comes to aged care. We want more still. What those opposite did is that they presided over no policy. (Time expired)

Queensland Health, Payroll System Mr SEENEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to the nurses pay scandal caused by a computer system reportedly recommended and procured by the Minister for Public Works and Information and Communication Technology. Did the Minister for Health speak to Minister Schwarten prior to the payroll system being implemented? What was his advice about its suitability and effectiveness? Mr LUCAS: I am a solicitor by profession and the Minister for Public Works is a teacher and also a former chippie. The member who asked the question is a farmer and the member for Caloundra is a solicitor as well. One thing I do not do when procuring an IT system or indeed when an operation is being performed on someone in Queensland Health is rely on my personal skill and diligence to do that. Acquiring an IT system is not like going down to Dick Smith and pulling Norton Antivirus off the shelf! We are entitled to rely on people who work for us, both in my ministerial colleague’s department and my own, to get it right. Clearly the implementation of this was not got right, and that is why we have made it crystal clear to Queensland Health that insofar as I am concerned as health minister it is not good enough. Frankly, neither the Minister for Public Works nor I are qualified to assess ICT systems. What we are qualified to do is expect performance from those who are employed by us to certify that IT systems are appropriate. I know what those opposite used to do during the old days. They would decide that this person would get a contract in the old days of Joh. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Stop the clock. Resume your seat. We will wait for the House to come to order. Mr LUCAS: I did not take the decision to buy a particular software program such as SAP or Workbrain. In fact, I think that occurred prior to my time as minister. In any event, nor, for example, did that happen with the procurement of the Gateway. That is done by expert people subject to appropriate procedures. Mr Seeney: Then what do you do? Mr LUCAS: What is clear, Mr Speaker— Mr Seeney: What do you do? Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Stop the clock. Mr Seeney: What do you do? Mr SPEAKER: Resume your seat. We will wait for the House to come to order. Mr LUCAS: What we do is to make sure that if there are issues they are sorted out, and this is about sorting it out. What we do is provide ever-increasing funding for Queensland Health to make sure that we can provide more operations, more doctors and more nurses, which we are doing in substantial numbers. Again I say that in 2005 there were 250 interns when this year there will be 556 and next year there will be 644. That is what we are delivering on. I expect us to deliver systems that work appropriately. It is not acceptable that it is not, and as health minister I accept responsibility for getting it sorted out. 13 Apr 2010 Questions Without Notice 1237

Business Investment Ms JOHNSTONE: My question is to the Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development. Can the Treasurer update the House on any recent success the government has achieved in attracting business investment and creating jobs in Queensland? Mr FRASER: I thank the member for Townsville for her question and for her interest in economic policies, for her interest in the job that we are doing to deliver jobs for the people of Queensland in regional economies like Townsville. Queensland remains the place to invest. It remains the place to do business. As I said earlier, we are leading from the front in terms of generating jobs in this nation over the last month. On Friday evening, along with the trade minister I presided over the opening of the Ullrich Aluminium new distribution centre in the electorate of the Minister for Disability Services. This New Zealand firm is investing in that distribution centre and in the manufacturing industry in this state. As Gilbert Ullrich said at that opening— If you want to do business, if you want to be in the growth phase, then you’ve got to be right here in Queensland. It’s the place to do business. It’s the place to invest. This does not happen by accident. It happens when you put in place the economic policies. It happens when you make the tough decisions and you are able to fund the programs, fund the injection into the economy and fund the support into the labour market to ensure you can get an economy moving. That is the dividend. That is the result of our policies in action. What have we seen over the past year from those opposite? We have seen policy inaction. Not one policy has been released by the opposition about what it would do on the economic front. It is coming up to the anniversary of that famous statement made on 20 April 2009 on ABC Radio by the Leader of the Opposition when he said— We need to clearly show the voters more in terms of policy. It is 358 days since he made the declaration that they need to show some policy and in those 358 days—one week short of the anniversary—what have we seen? We have seen nil. The Leader of the Opposition followed up that statement a couple of days later—on 7 May—on Channel 10 by saying— I’ve got lots of ideas. We’re working on policies and we’ll roll them out over coming weeks. I know that a week is a long time in politics, but it turns out that it is nearly a year. It turns out that it is 341 days. But in my quest to hope for the future, I have noticed that the Leader of the Opposition has at last given us an opportunity to hope, because in 16 short days he is off to CEDA. The Leader of the Opposition has declared that he will use his address to outline some of the LNP’s alternative policies for these and other future issues. There will be some policies—not many, but at least some. So the countdown is on. We are at 358 days and counting and, with 16 days to go, we want to know what he is going to do about the economy. What is his jobs target? Is it above zero? Will he repudiate once and for all his commitment to cull 12,000 jobs—a three per cent cut all the way across the public sector? The clock is ticking for the Leader of the Opposition. (Time expired) Queensland Health, Payroll System Mrs STUCKEY: My question is to the Minister for Public Works and Information and Communication Technology. Only a month ago the minister flew all the way to Germany to meet the global CEO of SAP, the company whose software has led us to the nurses pay scandal. The minister claims that while in Germany he successfully received an undertaking from SAP to assist with future rollouts of SAP software. Why did the minister not also seek an undertaking from SAP to assist with the current rollout of its software, including at Queensland Health? Or was the minister blindly ignorant of emerging payroll problems? Mr SCHWARTEN: Let us just take a moment to explain this. There was no suggestion from the health minister this morning that the SAP system is a failure, yet that is what they are implying. That highlights the ignorance of those who sit opposite on these matters. Quite frankly, if they knew anything about systems they would know that SAP leads the world in these sorts of HR systems. The reality is that the Queensland government took a decision some years ago to go to an entire system through the government of SAP. Mr McArdle: How many years ago? Mr SCHWARTEN: Seven or eight years ago. The reality is that the system that was in Health was unsupported. I heard the member for Currumbin make it quite clear that she has no understanding whatsoever about this matter by interjecting on the Premier, ‘Why wouldn’t you support it?’ It is the company—Lattice—that does the supporting and it was unsupported by that company. In other words, it is ancient technology that was about to fall over. Guess what would have happened then? There would not be one person in Queensland Health paid. Mrs Stuckey: You didn’t try to support it. Mr Lucas: We don’t go making parts for Holdens if they don’t make Holdens anymore. 1238 Questions Without Notice 13 Apr 2010

Mr SCHWARTEN: Exactly. The problem here is one of the collective ignorance of all of those who sit opposite. They think SAP is something that comes out of a tree. This system has worldwide acclaim. It is not a two-bit company. When I was in Germany I met the head of SAP. It is a worldwide company with a high reputation in this regard. As for the suggestion that it is some two-bit organisation, I would invite members to go outside and say that. If they did, the IT industry in Queensland would make a bigger laughing-stock of them than it does already because of their absence of policy. From what has been happening today, we are to take it that the opposition would have left Lattice there until it collapsed and not one person in Queensland Health would have been paid for months and months and months. In fact, somebody suggested to me— Mrs Stuckey interjected. Mr Lucas: It’s a matter of public record—in the media. Mr SCHWARTEN: Absolutely. It is a matter of public record. If the honourable member had been listening the last time the parliament sat, she would know that I made a ministerial statement about this issue and indicated that there were some challenges with data input. But anybody who suggests that this system is a two-bit system that is going to fail and fail and fail knows nothing about the complexity of 140,000 additions going into this system every pay. (Time expired) Solar Energy Ms NELSON-CARR: My question is to the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade. Will the minister inform the House how the rollout of solar initiatives is presenting across the solar state? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the member for the question because, as we have heard today, the Bligh government is committed to increasing the uptake of solar technologies right across the spectrum in Queensland. One innovative trial that is currently underway on Magnetic Island in North Queensland is already showing how a switch to solar can help reduce energy consumption, save money on electricity bills and slash greenhouse gas emissions. Magnetic Island residents and businesses are paving the way by participating in the Townsville: Queensland Solar City project and they are reaping the rewards, with some participating customers already saving up to 30 per cent on their energy costs. This flagship project is a joint state- Commonwealth initiative and it is part of our vision for a clean energy future for Queensland. Townsville boasts more than 300 days of sunshine every year, which makes Magnetic Island an ideal location for such a trial. The project will ultimately involve the installation of approximately 500 solar PV systems, 1,500 smart meters and around 1,700 free energy audits by 2013. It is predicted to provide 780 kilowatts of solar-generating capacity on the island and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 50,000 tonnes over the seven-year life of the project. Already, two out of every three homes and businesses on Magnetic Island are doing the bright thing and participating in this project. To date, 122 solar PV systems installed on local rooftops are exporting approximately 1,230 kilowatt hours of solar energy directly back into the electricity grid every day. That is enough to power more than 100 homes during daylight hours. More then 1,100 of the island’s 1,700 properties have already received a free energy assessment and have had light globes replaced with energy efficient compact fluorescent bulbs. Those replacement globes have already removed a further 300 kilowatts of electricity usage from the grid—a saving equivalent to the daily power needs of around 30 average homes. All of these initiatives combined have already helped achieve a seven per cent reduction in electricity demand on Magnetic Island and a 16,000 tonne cut in greenhouse gas emissions. Magnetic Island is showing other Queensland communities the way of the future. Harnessing the sun’s energy to reduce our use of grid electricity is the bright thing to do. The results that are being achieved already on Magnetic Island highlight how community involvement in solar energy programs can make a real difference now and into the future. Queensland Health, Rostering Ms BATES: My question is to the Minister for Health. Another facet of the nurses pay scandal is that nurses right across Queensland are having to turn up to work on their days off to cover for this government’s failed rostering system. Will the minister say how many Queensland Health procedures have been cancelled due to rostering stuff-ups under Labor’s bungled rostering system? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question. I will examine that particular issue and get back to the honourable member in relation to it. I make it clear that there is no choice in replacing Lattice. The risk in not replacing an unsupported system is not to have anyone paid at all and that is not satisfactory. What is also not satisfactory and totally unacceptable is the method by which the implementation of this system was carried out once it was to go live. The honourable member for 13 Apr 2010 Questions Without Notice 1239

Caloundra asked me before about staff involved in data entry who are doing a wonderful job working hard for us. Everyone else in the opposition has asked only about nurses. There are also staff in data entry, our wardsmen, doctors, allied health professionals and administrative people. The opposition at the last election had a policy of making people ‘de-necessary’. Mr Seeney: That’s rubbish. Mr LUCAS: Who do members think would be the people squarely in front of the gun in Queensland Health under the opposition? They would be administrative people such as payroll staff. I have made it clear that where people are out of pocket as a result of, for example, payment dishonours and the like Queensland Health must meet the full cost of that. It is unacceptable that they are in that situation and I apologise for that. We ask any staff who are in that situation to let us know and we will sort that out. This is about having an appropriate payroll system for an enormous organisation with the biggest budget in the government. The option to roll it out in another department first was not there. The Lattice system in Queensland Health was a system that needed to be replaced. This is about making sure that we can deal with this. I am told that the functionality of the new SAP/Workbrain system will ultimately allow people to apply for leave online, which is good in terms of reducing administrative overheads so that we can then get our staff in payroll to do things that we need their significant expertise for. They are very good people. This is about making sure that when a system is rolled out it is not just about the technical aspects of the system; it is about the human interactions. They are very important. Again, I apologise to our staff.

State Schools Mrs MILLER: My question is to the Minister for Education. Could the minister update the House on how Queensland schools fared in term 1 and what lays ahead for Queensland education in term 2? Mr WILSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. She always displays a very keen interest in what is happening to and in schools in her electorate. As we resume the second term, 488,000 students are returning to the state education system. They are returning to an education system that is committed to a number of key principles: one, first-class facilities; two, that we boost the achievement of schools; three, that we boost the success rate and the achievement of individual students; and, four, that we improve the transparency of information for parents about what is happening in our schools and the improvements that we are undertaking. We are continuing to roll out, not just in the first term but in the second term, more and more of the forums for the Flying Start discussion paper which is setting the foundation for a blueprint for further education reform into the future in Queensland. We have planned up to about 80 forums. More than 1,000 parents, teachers, professionals and others the length and breadth of Queensland from across all the education sectors have attended these forums so far. We are designing a blueprint for the future of education across those three sectors here in Queensland. We have also set up the alliance to address issues of bullying, which, again, is taking place across the three sectors. That is working very well. As I have said, today we are rolling out the education series being led by Dr Carr-Gregg that will be rolled out to 30 different places of professional development for teachers, principals and parents. We also had the summer schools earlier this year which 1,900 students attended. There will be another summer school later this year. We have rolled out 91 literacy and numeracy coaches targeted on improving reading, writing and arithmetic for students. We have opened new multimillion dollar schools, part of the 850 State Schools of Tomorrow program. But where is the opposition on this? A blank page—an enormous blank page. There has been nothing announced as new policy on education and training since the last election. The only innovation, although I do not agree with it, comes from the member for Burnett who wants sniffer dogs roaming schools. There is some policy innovation from the member for Beaudesert, but he has been slapped down and sent to the back blocks. Those opposite were going to put a capital works freeze on State Schools of Tomorrow at the last election. The public of Queensland rejected that proposal. They were going to take a 3 per cent cut off all departments, meaning 12,000 people every year would lose their jobs, including in Education. Those opposite are nowhere, with no vision for the future.

Warrego Highway Mr RICKUSS: My question is to the Minister for Main Roads. I refer to the tragic accident on the Warrego Highway at Crowley Vale yesterday. Since the last management plan for the Warrego Highway lapsed in 2007 I have sought a full management plan and safety audit to correct the serious deficiencies of this section of the highway. I ask: when will such a plan be reinstated and the safety of the Warrego Highway improved? Or will there be more victims of this Labor government’s failure to plan? 1240 Questions Without Notice 13 Apr 2010

Mr WALLACE: It was a tragic accident yesterday and my sympathies go out to all involved. Any accident on our roads, especially one involving little kiddies, is a terrible, terrible thing. My department will do the right thing: we will cooperate with the police in undertaking a safety audit where that particular accident occurred. Nothing is more important than safety on our roads. We will work with all authorities. I have said time and time again, as has the Premier, that we are lobbying very hard for extra funding from the federal government for the Warrego Highway, as we have done for all national road networks across this state. This was a terrible accident and we will do whatever it takes to ensure that if there are any concerns they are addressed. I am informed that where this accident occurred was a dual- lane carriageway. I would implore motorists travelling on that section of road—indeed on every section of road in our state—to follow the speed limits and certainly be careful. We will continue to lobby the federal government for extra funding for that road and we will carry out those works identified as needed once investigations are completed by the police. Again, I offer my sympathies to everyone concerned. It is a terrible, terrible thing to have occurred on our roads. Mr Rickuss: We need a safety audit of the whole road. Mr WALLACE: The safety of our roads is our No. 1 priority, and I have said that time and time again in this place. We need the federal government to play its role. I am glad that the Rudd government has committed funding to the Warrego Highway. Again, I make a plea to Canberra, as I have done in regard to national highways right across this state, to give us extra funding for our roads. They are needed. We will cooperate fully with the police as they undertake this investigation, as we do in relation to any serious or fatal accident in this state. Local Government Reform Mr RYAN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships. Can the minister please inform the House how the Fraser Coast Regional Council has risen to the challenge of amalgamation? Ms BOYLE: I thank the member for the question. Some members will have noticed in their local papers that the passing of the date of two years post amalgamation has led to many amalgamated councils making statements about their progress and many community papers canvassing the issue more broadly. One of the difficult amalgamations was undoubtedly the Fraser Coast and I am pleased indeed to inform the House of some of the considerable achievements of that council since amalgamation. The Fraser Coast Regional Council was an amalgamation of four councils: Maryborough, Hervey Bay, Tiaro and Woocoo. That council has done very well indeed in terms of stepping up to the mark to be much more strategic than any of the component councils were able to be. For example, in 12 months the council has built a $1.3 million recycling centre that disposes of waste using best practice methods. It has already completed an economic development strategy for the Fraser Coast that is focused on creating jobs and wealth for future generations. It has been particularly successful in bidding, through my department, for state funding for the $40 million Eli South waste water treatment plant. I am pleased to say that we are contributing $16.5 million to that important project. The plant is substantially complete and is close to final commissioning. Of course, it will provide vital infrastructure for the rapidly growing area of Hervey Bay. Also in Hervey Bay we have seen the construction of the new $12 million WetSide Water Education Park, a world-class water education facility. That was a Q150 project to which, through the Premier’s program, we contributed some $4.95 million. The council is going well, but the question is this: will the Fraser Coast Regional Council be one of those de-amalgamated under the ill-expressed policy of the shadow minister for local government? While the leader of the LNP says that it will not be done in very many places, that is not the view of the shadow minister. He says, ‘I’ve continued to commit to de-amalgamation and I give you a further commitment today that the LNP will give you your council back. It can be done; if you want it, it will be done.’ Will the LNP do it to the Fraser Coast under its CHAOS policy? All the achievements, all the hard work and all the successes will be undone under its CHAOS policy—Community Havoc, Amalgamations Off, Sort of. (Time expired) Taxi Industry Mr WELLINGTON: My question is to the Minister for Transport. Recently I met with representatives from the Cab Drivers Association of Queensland where they expressed a sense of frustration with the progress that the Department of Transport’s health and safety committee is making in producing a fair and equitable bailment agreement for use between Queensland taxidrivers and operators. Can the minister advise: what is the progress of the review of the bailment agreement and will it be presented to the Taxi Industry Advisory Committee for consideration before it is finalised? 13 Apr 2010 Questions Without Notice 1241

Ms NOLAN: I thank the member for Nicklin for what I think is a very good question. Recently a number of reforms have been made in relation to the taxi industry. Last year, within the Department of Transport and Main Roads, I established a new taxi compliance unit which, in the five months to February, conducted 94 specifically targeted operations checks on 4,000 taxis. In November last year new rules came into effect that meant one year’s experience driving on Australian roads was required before someone could become a taxidriver. There was some concern that people who were not experienced in our road conditions were arriving from overseas and becoming taxidrivers very quickly. That change came into effect in November. A further change is that people have to be at least 20 years old before they can become a taxidriver. In addition, I established the Taxi Industry Advisory Council, which brought together the key industry players and, for the first time, gave the drivers, including the Cab Drivers Association of Queensland with whom the member met, an active voice around the table of government in developing the net strategic plan for the taxi industry going forward. Right now, one of the Industrial Relations Commissioners, Don Brown, is conducting an investigation into the employment relationship between taxi companies or owners and taxidrivers. The issues around bailment agreements between taxi owners or companies and taxidrivers are being considered as part of that work. There is an intersection here between the Industrial Relations Commission, which essentially has responsibility for the employment relationship, and the Department of Transport. The member is correct in saying that my department has done some work around a model bailment agreement. The taxidrivers have not yet been consulted on that. I am keen to hear what Don Brown comes up with. I think it would be silly to put forward a bailment agreement now when the Industrial Relations Commission may only be a few months away from making quite substantial changes to that bailor/bailee relationship. We will hear what Don Brown has to say very soon, but I am open to the idea of a model bailment agreement that will establish clear model rules for that bailee/bailor relationship. I think that we will resolve this over the next number of months in response to the Industrial Relations Commission report.

WorkCover Ms van LITSENBURG: My question is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations. Could the minister please advise the House of the progress that has been made in relation to the current review of WorkCover? Mr DICK: I thank the honourable member for her question and for her very keen interest in ensuring that we have a fair and balanced workers compensation system for all Queensland workers. I am pleased to report to the parliament that the Bligh government’s review of WorkCover is progressing well. The consultation on our discussion paper has now closed and we have received more than 50 submissions from a range of stakeholders including employer groups, workers and lawyers. We are focused on developing a workers compensation scheme for injured Queensland workers that is fair and balanced—fair and balanced for workers and fair and balanced for employers. This matter has been at the forefront of the government’s mind since November last year. For five months we have been working on this. Since that time, what have we done? On 12 November last year we tabled the WorkCover annual report. On 26 November 2009 I delivered a ministerial statement to the parliament, setting out the WorkCover board’s proposed response to this issue. On 23 February this year, I reported again to the parliament. I convened a stakeholder reference group. We have had four meetings in six weeks. We have also posted on the government’s website the more than 50 submissions we have received. We have been open and transparent for the whole world to see. What have we seen from the Liberal National Party? Nothing until last weekend. I welcome the shadow minister’s intervention. Five months after the issue was raised, he has woken up. At this pace, perhaps he will have something for the state of Queensland after the next election. This is the person who wanted to make jobs ‘de-necessary’, who could not see the global financial crisis when it was coming and who denied it even when it was here. Let us look back to the golden years of the Liberal National Party under the Borbidge government in 1996-97, when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition sat around the cabinet table. Who was the last LNP minister for industrial relations in this parliament? Of course, it was the workers’ friend, Santo Santoro. What did those opposite do when in government? They sought to systematically dismantle the workers compensation scheme. They even went around changing the definition of a worker so that legitimate workers and contractors were excluded from the scheme, including supermarket trolley boys and girls. People who gather supermarket trolleys were excluded from the workers compensation scheme as labour hirers. That is their legacy. What was their financial management of the scheme? When they left government, what did then Minister Santo Santoro have to say when he put pen to paper on 30 October 1997? There was a deficit of $125 million—1997 dollars, that is. What was the premium for businesses? Was it $1.15, as it is now? No! It was $2.14. That is their legacy. We will fix this problem and have a fair and balanced scheme for workers. 1242 Matters of Public Interest 13 Apr 2010

Port of Gladstone

Mrs CUNNINGHAM: My question without notice is to the Minister for Transport. In light of recent events and the significant increase in shipping proposed for the Gladstone port, will the minister commit to the installation of a new long-range vessel tracking system to replace the current inadequate system, and will the minister assure port users that funding allocated to the Port of Gladstone for this new system has not been redirected to Townsville? Ms NOLAN: Again, I thank the member for Gladstone for the question. To answer the second part of her question first: some confusion has been created by the member for Mirani around this issue to do with Townsville. At the moment there is a vessel tracking system in place which operates from the Torres Strait to just south of Mackay. It was established in the mid-nineties, I understand, primarily by the Commonwealth government but it is operated on a day-to-day basis by my agency through Maritime Safety Queensland. Recently the monitoring room for that existing ReefVTS, as it is called, was moved from Hay Point to Townsville. The reason for that is that Townsville has much better access to broadband and to reliable electricity, particularly in the case of a cyclone when it becomes imperative that we continue to be able to monitor the ships that are out there. It was the monitoring room that moved from Hay Point to Townsville. The footprint created by the vessel tracking system was not changed at all. So the member for Mirani’s recent claim that there had been a shipping disaster in response to the move of the vessel tracking system was, quite frankly, facile. There was no change in the footprint that was created by the vessel tracking system. Subsequent to the recent accident that happened further south towards Gladstone, the Premier and I both called for the Commonwealth to extend the footprint of the vessel tracking system from where it now ends south of Mackay to further down towards Gladstone in recognition that, as the LNG industry takes off in coming years and as coal exports increase, there will be an increase in vessel tracking through that part of the reef. The original decision was that the northern parts of the reef were more complex from a navigational perspective. That is why it was originally set up in the north. But, yes, it is the Queensland government’s view that the vessel tracking system should be extended further to the south so as to respond to an increase in vessel traffic in this similarly important part of the Great Barrier Reef. We understand that the protection of the reef is imperative and we have already put on the record our call to the Commonwealth for an extension of the ReefVTS.

Mr SPEAKER: Matters of public interest will come to an end at 12.32 pm.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST

Queensland Health, Payroll System

Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.32 am): In the past two weeks since parliament last sat, the two major issues have been the nurses pay scandal and the Shen Neng 1, which have created major issues for the people of Queensland from an environmental perspective and a financial perspective, particularly for those nurses and other health workers who have not been paid for up to three pay cycles. Let us have a look at some of the details of the pay scandal and then have a look at some of the responses we have had when we have tried to hold ministers and the Premier responsible this morning—the Minister for Public Works and ICT supposedly working in conjunction with the Minister for Health and reporting to the Premier. Today we have heard the remarkable admission from the Minister for Health that he is not actually qualified to do his job in terms of assessing things within his portfolio, ignoring long-held Westminster provisions about the responsibilities of ministers. The Minister for Health used the excuse that he is a ‘solicitor’ and he is ‘dealing with a former teacher who is also a chippie’. These are incredible admissions from the Minister for Health, who is basically saying—who knows what he is really saying about what is his job as health minister or the various other portfolios he has held. If ministers are only supposed to have qualifications in the fields for which they are ministers but he does not have professional qualifications in the field for which he is a minister, then what on earth is he doing as the Minister for Health? Does it mean that we are only supposed to have doctors as ministers for health? No-one has said that. No-one has claimed that. I certainly do not claim as a health professional that I should therefore be the minister for health. But it is certainly an understanding in the Westminster tradition that a minister does have responsibility for things that happen in their ministry and it is not because of their qualifications. Ministerial responsibility is a long-held tradition of the Westminster system, yet very clearly the second most senior minister within the government, the Deputy Premier, has this morning made the remarkable statement that he is not qualified to do his job. He clearly could not answer the questions that were put to him today. 13 Apr 2010 Matters of Public Interest 1243

Let us look again at the circumstances of this pay scandal. We have nurses and health workers who cannot afford to pay their rent, who cannot afford to pay their bills, who cannot afford to put food on the table. There is anecdotal evidence of some people using tea towels instead of nappies because they cannot afford to buy them; borrowing or begging $20 and $50 from people; raiding money from their children’s piggy banks; being subjected to late payment fees; being subjected to threats of eviction. We have not had any denials of this from the government this morning in question time. In fact, we had the remarkable acknowledgement by the Deputy Premier that there is a commitment to fund out-of-pocket expenses. If ever we had a government that deals with things by crisis management, here again we had an admission from the health minister that there is a commitment to fund out-of-pocket costs. Where will it stop? What costs are going to be covered—direct-debiting costs, bounced cheque costs? Who is going to assess what these costs are? Or will it be more like the many other provisions that this government makes, whether it is for drought relief or flood relief—announce it on the day and then set the bar too high for people to jump over? Or will it be like as we saw yesterday with the clean energy fund? That fund was announced with great fanfare in 2007-08 to supposedly encourage businesses to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But then very quietly this $50 million commitment disappeared because once again no-one fit the criteria. That is probably what we had from the health minister this morning. The opposition calls on the minister to tell us the details of the commitment to fund out-of-pocket costs of the health workers who have not been paid appropriately. How are they going to recover those costs? Once again, we know that crisis management clearly costs more than proper planning. Yet the health minister has tried to make a virtue of the fact that there had not been a proper crossover between Lattice and the new SAP payroll scheme and has tried to make out that there was nothing unusual about that. Very obviously this crisis is a consequence of poor planning and once again we see crisis management. We have seen a litany of crisis management—whether it is the water grid or whether it is planning for growth and infrastructure planning. That is where this government has let the people of Queensland down now for nigh on 20 years. But this government just does not learn. Very obviously we had a minister who did not deny the fact this morning that he refused to be woken from his lull when he was first advised of the pay dramas. One of his advisers said, ‘It would have to be a major drama for the minister to step in.’ Very obviously he did not consider it a major drama because it did not affect him. He would rather be wearing a hard hat on a bridge project or a road project somewhere. This is very obviously a health minister who never wanted the job. He did not want the job; he still does not want the job. Even when he came in here and made his ministerial statement this morning, it was done in a hushed tone. He rapidly read through it so no-one could hear the details. We will have to look at the details in Hansard. That was very different to the ‘Foghorn Leghorn’ who loves to rant and rave about any other issue that does not involve health. That is what we get from this health minister. We heard from the Premier this morning that Labor will keep every cent of the $191,000 given by the Nurses Union at the last election. Supposedly the Nurses Union officials would have said to their workers then, ‘Yes, this is Labor. They will be standing up for us.’ But look at what is happening now. The government cannot even pay its nurses properly. It does beg the question of the Nurses Union and their executive: why aren’t they here outside the parliament demanding that their nurses be paid appropriately? Can members imagine if it were the LNP that had missed up to three pay cycles? This is the side of the parliament that is actually standing up for workers and demanding that workers be paid appropriately. We do not see the Nurses Union here standing up for them. We do not see the government standing up for them, apart from the platitudes that the government is giving them. This is the side that believes that employers have to pay their employees, especially the government. If the government will not do it then the LNP opposition will stand up for the workers of Queensland, as we have done since the election last year in March on the issue of privatisation and now on the issue of pay. All we get from the Premier is, ‘Let them eat cake.’ That is the Premier’s response to calls that Labor do the only honourable thing and give the money back to the Nurses Union. We have had staff at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital told to seek the assistance of charities for supermarket vouchers for food and financial assistance. They were provided with phone lists for the Salvation Army, St Vincent de Paul and the Wesley Mission. This is a payroll system that was supposed to save money. Surely when you bring in a new system it is supposed to save money, but it is actually costing money. As I understand it from the shadow minister for public works and ICT, this is up to $50 million in Health and $180 million across government. Knowing this government and its hiding of things, it could well be, and probably is, much more than that. These are answers that the government needs to give to the parliament and to the people of Queensland. Today again from the health minister we had no guarantees that at the next payday people in Queensland Health and across government will be properly paid. There were no guarantees, only a vague commitment that ‘we’ll do the best we can’ and ‘people are working hard’. It is not good enough 1244 Matters of Public Interest 13 Apr 2010 for those people who are struggling throughout Queensland. He also refused to say exactly when he got his first personal phone call from the Queensland Nurses Union boss, Gay Hawksworth, pleading for her members to be paid. There are so many other issues in relation to which we need to have answers. We need to hear from the Minister for Public Works and ICT, who made a trip to Germany to speak to the people who were bringing in this company— An opposition member: A jaunt. Mr LANGBROEK: He had a jaunt to Germany. What are the penalties for poor performance? What are the penalties for what has happened in this situation? Just as the Minister for Sport was unable to negotiate with the IMG and A1GP promoters as to what the penalties would be if they did not live up to their contracts, I suspect in this portfolio, as in others, no contractual negotiations have been carried out such that, if you do not live up to your contract, you are going to pay the penalty. Why? Because the Minister for Sport is not qualified in his portfolio either. Mr REEVES: Madam Deputy Speaker, apart from having a sports management degree, I find those words offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms O’Neill): Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw those comments. Mr LANGBROEK: I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker. I look forward to seeing him drive an A1GP vehicle when it finally gets here. In contrast to this, when the Treasurer says that the LNP is not releasing policies, I promise this: we will restore confidence in our state. We are going to stop privatisations. We are going to stop issues like mistruths being told to parliament. We are going to stop poor planning and crisis management, which we see from this government. Most importantly, I want to restore confidence to Queensland. That is what my commitment is. I invite the Treasurer to come and hear me speak at CEDA about governance issues where I promise that ministers in an LNP Langbroek government will live up to ministerial responsibilities as per the Westminster tradition and will not fob off things with excuses such as ‘I’m not qualified’. We are qualified and we will prove it at the next election.

Walking to Freedom; Cancer Treatment Services Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (11.42 am): I wish to speak on two topics, time permitting. The first relates to the plight of 10 children and young children who survived the civil war in Sudan and who later found refuge in Queensland whose stories have been recorded in a new book called Walking to Freedom. The book was launched by me, representing the Minister for Multicultural Affairs, on behalf of the Awulian Community Development Association in Toowoomba on Wednesday, 24 March. Walking to Freedom is the first collection of memories by the Queensland Sudanese community of Toowoomba. I will read to the House the wording on the back sheet of the book, which states— Walking to Freedom chronicles the lives of a group of young men and women from Southern Sudan’s Awulian clan, Christian, animist, agricultural people driven from their homes by northern Islamic government forces. Their stories recall the terrifying, arduous, thousand-mile treks forced on them as children, orphaned or separated from their families by civil war and dubbed the Lost Boys of Sudan by aid agencies. Their journeys crisscrossed harsh and hostile landscapes, into neighbouring Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda, in search of refuge, alone and in groups, fending for themselves. From displaced persons camps, ration cards and school classes under trees, they eventually make their way as humanitarian refugees to Australia. Powerful, eloquent, heartbreaking yet uplifting, Walking to Freedom brings alive the sounds of cattle camps, children’s games, village meetings and the wisdom received from beloved family elders. AK47s, air assaults, wild animals and disease and starvation also inhabit these pages. The lasting image is of grace, dignity, courage and resilience and the enduring power of hope. More than 2,300 Queenslanders were born in Sudan, with around 400 of these living in the Toowoomba area. Sudan is the third most common overseas birthplace for people in this area, behind England and New Zealand. The launch of Walking to Freedom is being followed by a training program designed to support the authors and the community to independently run their own speakers bureau to increase community understanding of Sudanese history and culture, and the refugee and resettlement experience. This program provides an important opportunity for community members to share their stories and interact with the wider community. The Department of Communities through Multicultural Affairs Queensland is pleased to have provided $12,000 to the Awulian Community Development Association to support the Walking to Freedom and speakers bureau project under the 2009-10 Multicultural Assistance Program. The association also received $24,797 from the Gambling Community Benefit Fund in 2009 to support the development of written memoirs and short documentaries of the Sudanese community. The Bligh government supports projects like this because they enable Queenslanders to celebrate and acknowledge the wonderful diversity of our communities. 13 Apr 2010 Matters of Public Interest 1245

I commend this book at a cost of $20 to all MPs. No-one would remain unaffected by the heart- rending stories. In order to avoid offence as a result of my inadequate pronunciation, I seek leave to incorporate the list of authors and project team members. I have referred this matter to the Speaker. Leave granted. Walking to freedom writers Paul Mabior Garang: Chairperson AWCODA (Awulian Community Development Association Ajak Deng Biar Ayii Atem Dak John Dau Deng Dau Dabora Alakiir Kuir Aguin Manyok Aguin Philip Garang Deng Dit Joseph Ajak Akec Ajak Atem Ajang Jok Akuac Manyok Aguin Project team members Paul Mabior Garang, Project Coordinator Marlyn Mclnnerney, Project developer Jenny Noble (Living Life-stories), Lifewriting Tutor Meryl Hutchison, Transcriber Wendy Richards (Page One Editing and Publishing), Editor Mr SHINE: There are many Toowoomba residents who have done stirling work on behalf of the Sudanese. May I congratulate, in particular, Archdeacon Gary Harch on behalf of the Anglican parish of St James in Toowoomba, and Dr Mark Copland, on behalf of the Catholic Social Justice Commission, for the work that they have done. The second point I would like to touch on is the grant of $16.2 million to improve cancer services by the Rudd government announced last week. Associated with this, however, will be a provision of $33.11 million to the Toowoomba Hospital over four years by the state government to run the services. The grant by the federal government consists of $9.5 million to expand Toowoomba Hospital’s palliative and cancer services, with a similar amount going to St Andrew’s Hospital for the purposes of the acquisition of a cancer radiation bunker at that hospital. Toowoomba Hospital has historically been a major medical hub for people in south-west Queensland and parts of northern New South Wales. These additions will be of further benefit to them and to Toowoomba based patients accessing cancer services. (Time expired) Heart Foundation Parliamentary Breakfast Forum Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (11.47 am): Tomorrow I will join my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary for Health at the Heart Foundation Parliamentary Breakfast Forum. The focus is on warning signs of a heart attack, with the key message ‘act quickly, save lives’. In February, on behalf of the Minister for Emergency Services, I launched the Heart Foundation’s ‘Will you recognise your heart attack?’ campaign. Tomorrow’s forum is an important part of this campaign. The forum will be headed by an expert panel including cardiologist Dr Roger Wilkinson and Medical Director of the Queensland Ambulance Services, Dr Stephen Rashford. All members of parliament are invited to attend the breakfast at 7.30 tomorrow morning to learn how to recognise and act quickly when a loved one experiences the warning signs of a heart attack. Coronary heart disease mainly from heart attack is the No. 1 cause of death and one of the leading causes of disability in Australia, claiming the lives of almost 23,000 men and women in 2007. More than half of all heart attack deaths occur before the person reaches hospital, with about 25 per cent dying within an hour of experiencing their first symptom. Time to treatment is a critical factor in saving lives and preserving heart function during a heart attack. The shorter the time between the onset of a warning sign and treatment, the better the outcome. The median time it takes for someone to decide to call 000 in Australia is about 6.4 hours, and this is far too long. Recent Heart Foundation research shows that many Australians are unfamiliar with the various warning signs of a heart attack. Research highlighted that fewer than 70 per cent of people recognise chest pain as a key warning sign and fewer than half were aware of other common warning signs such as arm, shoulder, back and jaw pain. Of critical importance, only 20 per cent of all people surveyed would call 000 if they were experiencing chest discomfort with associated dizziness. A lot of people delay calling an ambulance because they are afraid of being embarrassed if it turns out they were not having a heart attack. The Heart Foundation’s ‘Will you recognise your heart attack?’ campaign serves to raise awareness in the community of the various heart attack signs and symptoms and the importance of calling 000 quickly. The Queensland government, through the Queensland Ambulance Service and Queensland Health, is proud to support this campaign. Helping people to recognise the warning signs of a heart attack early and to act quickly by calling 000 will help reduce the time to treatment and will save lives. 1246 Matters of Public Interest 13 Apr 2010

Paramedics are there to help. The Queensland Ambulance Service is amongst the best in the country. In 2008-09 our Queensland ambulance officers responded to 50 per cent of code 1 incidents within 8.4 minutes—the best in the country—and were the third fastest with 90 per cent of code 1 incidents responded to within 17.2 minutes. Medical treatment can be started on the way to hospital by our highly trained paramedics. In 2008-09 the Queensland Ambulance Service reported a remarkable 5.1 per cent improvement in the rate of cardiac arrest survival compared to previous years, with 23.7 per cent of cardiac arrest patients surviving to hospital. In early 2008 Queensland paramedics were the first in Australia to introduce a state-wide reperfusion program to optimise the chances of survival from heart attacks. Paramedics commence treatment early, in people’s homes and workplaces, to improve outcomes where treatment was once only undertaken when in a hospital. This program involves the recognition of a heart attack in the field by our paramedics. The patient is then either transferred directly to an angioplasty lab in a major cardiac centre or administered clot-busting drugs on the scene by our ambulance officers. Since the inception of the program more than 150 patients have been administered these clot-busting drugs by Queensland Ambulance Service paramedics and more than 70 patients have been transferred directly to an angioplasty lab. This comprehensive, multipronged approach is aimed at improving outcomes and reducing death and disability rates for all Queenslanders affected by heart disease. I encourage all members of the House to attend this important forum tomorrow to show their support for this life-saving campaign. I look forward to working with the Heart Foundation in the future as we continue to promote awareness about recognising the warning signs of a heart attack and the need to act quickly to save lives. Shipping Industry; Cairns, Highway Upgrade Ms SIMPSON (Maroochydore—LNP) (11.52 am): Shipping is the lifeblood of our export based economy. The Great Barrier Reef is one of the natural wonders of the world. This is a delicate balance and it must be managed by the Queensland government. A week ago we saw the Shen Neng 1 coal ship run aground on the Great Barrier Reef off Gladstone and spill oil. This grounding has raised some major questions about the management and scrutiny of shipping by the Labor government. Why are ships rat-running through our reef? The government knew this was a problem but did nothing until a crisis occurred and then it announced a review. Where is the surveillance of ships particularly on the southern end of the reef? Why is the Maritime Safety Queensland strategic plan two years out of date having expired in 2008? Where is the contingency planning for major incidents in the waters around Queensland? Why have the government and the minister not acted on any of these questions? Gladstone is already a major coal port and will soon be one of the biggest gas terminals in Australia. The number of ships travelling in this sensitive area will surge as our resources industry continues to boom. The public, Queenslanders, are rightly asking: why has this government not reinvested some of the royalties into better surveillance and enforcement of ships travelling along the Great Barrier Reef? This is the government that sent Queensland bust in a boom. This is the government that 12 months ago presided over an oil spill in Moreton Bay. It was found that it did not have a plan for a major oil spill. Maritime Safety Queensland, which is supposed to be the lead agency to deal with these issues, was thrown into a state of confusion when the Premier declared a disaster. The reports outline that there was confusion as to who was in charge during the early days of that incident. They were not prepared. This latest incident occurred in federal waters, but the ship also passed through state waters. There is combined jurisdiction over elements of the Great Barrier Reef. The state is responsible for the area close to the shore and the federal government is responsible for the area further out. It stands to reason that this is a state government that has not taken its responsibility seriously by ensuring that there is proper investment in preventing these incidents and that there are plans in place to deal with these incidents if they occur. I want to turn to another issue in North Queensland. I refer to the Cairns highway upgrade. We support the need for improved infrastructure and roads in this vital area. The first stage of the Cairns highway upgrade is necessary but there needs to be major adjustments to lessen the impact on the local community, businesses and residents and to make sure there is continued community cohesion and that the community is not divided. We have raised concerns about the plans for the first stage and have taken them up with the department. I understand that the first stage is being amended but we are still waiting to see the final detail. It is important when upgrading roads that the work is undertaken with the least impact on people’s houses, businesses and lives. The subsequent stages are the ones that are having an amazingly detrimental impact upon people. These upgrades will not occur for many, many years. There is no defined time frame as to when they are to occur and yet their impact is already being felt by hundreds of people today. They are in a great deal of distress. The level of impact from the subsequent stages that have been outlined in the planning documents is something we must draw to the attention of the House. 13 Apr 2010 Matters of Public Interest 1247

There has been a call for alternative access into Cairns to be investigated. The old plans are out of date. We support a feasibility study into alternative access into Cairns to remove the uncertainty currently being experienced by those people living in the area of the proposed upgrade route further out from Cairns and those people living in other areas who are wondering where any alternative route may be. Any alternative route must not have a major impact upon houses. Consideration must be given to its impact upon the environment and to ameliorating any such impact. It is important for the future of this region that it has certainty. It does not deserve to have that number of people currently in a great deal of distress because of the way this government has handled this process. Cairns is doing it tough enough now. It has one of the worst unemployment rates in Queensland, which is translated into jobs on the ground disappearing. The government’s handling of the Cairns highway upgrade consultation has threatened further jobs and people’s lifestyle. Home and Community Care Funding; Ipswich City, 150th Anniversary Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (11.57 am): I wanted to quickly advise the House this morning of a great boost for our Queensland seniors. Last week I had the pleasure of partnering the federal Minister for Ageing, Justine Elliot, in announcing a $672,000 funding boost for Home and Community Care services, or HACC services as many of us know them, across Queensland. As all members of this House would know, HACC delivers affordable and accessible care to help meet the individual needs of older people as well as young people with a disability—and that is something that is not often known—and, in some cases, it also helps their carers by helping people to remain living independently in their own homes and as such in their local communities. It is worth noting that this valuable program is jointly funded by the Australian and Queensland governments. I was very pleased to represent the Queensland Minister for Disability Services, Minister Palaszczuk, in making this announcement last week. Also in attendance on the day was the federal member for Blair, Shayne Neumann, and a number of Ipswich city councillors who administer the funds as part of the council’s operational program. What was even more pleasing to note on the day was the fact that the local Ipswich area will receive $36,400 from the funds which will, I am advised, help an additional 37 people in the region receive home modifications. When I say the Ipswich region it is important to note that this extends out to our rural areas in the Somerset and Lockyer regional council areas as well. I suppose what it goes to show is that these funds will provide $672,000 for 28 organisations throughout Queensland to provide critical home modification services such as the installation of handrails in bathrooms, the construction of ramps to replace stairs, the fitting of hand-held showers and emergency alarms, and the list goes on. Specifically, I think it is worthwhile acknowledging that some of this funding boost includes extra support of about $150,000 to the St Vincent de Paul Society Queensland Home Modification and Maintenance Program, $60,000 for the Maryborough-Burnett-Cooloola district’s Home Assist Secure, $86,800 to the Toowoomba Community Housing Service Inc., $7,800 for the Mount Isa Community Development Association Inc. and $7,375 for the Far North Queensland Home Assist Secure program. The best part about the home modification program is that it provides practical assistance by allowing people to remain independent in their own homes and communities rather than move permanently or prematurely into much more expensive permanent residential care. To give members some idea of the size of the program, I can report that last year more than 163,000 people in Queensland benefited from services provided through the Home and Community Care program. I personally saw the benefits of this program and what it delivers when my own father-in- law received modifications to his bathroom and lounge areas in recent times. In his case it made a real difference to his lifestyle by allowing him to maintain his independence and stay out of a higher needs facility for just that little bit longer. Mr Stevens interjected. Mr WENDT: I take the interjection from the member for Mermaid Beach and know that for a small amount of expenditure in this case the end result was the saving of many thousands of dollars to the taxpayer. I also take this opportunity to commend the field officers who work from the Ipswich City Council depots to perform these invaluable services. In particular, I was fortunate on the day to be able to catch up with Peter Hauck, the council’s Home Assist field officer. Peter was able to tell me that he sees numerous good news stories each day across the West Moreton region, which includes Ipswich, which is estimated to have nearly 15,000 people aged 70 and over. Therefore, members will be able to see that there will be a need for more of this type of funding and not less. As we all know, our state and our country have an ageing population, and providing practical services like home modifications is very important to older people and people with disabilities in our area. As such, it is pleasing to see that both the federal and state governments will provide $429 million in funding for home and community services in Queensland—an 11 per cent increase on funding provided last year. My thanks go to the federal minister, Justine Elliot, and particularly to the state minister, , for identifying this need and acting quickly and compassionately. 1248 Matters of Public Interest 13 Apr 2010

Also today I want to mention that Ipswich is celebrating its 150th anniversary of becoming a city, and last night I was one of the special ambassadors elected by the council to represent the people. In fact, we had a special council meeting in the Ipswich Civic Centre which attracted over 250 attendees. It was an outstanding evening. Other members in this chamber were also recognised as ambassadors— the member for Lockyer, Mr Rickuss, and the members for Ipswich and Inala. As I said, it was an outstanding evening. Funnily enough, the council portrayed it in period custom, which was something to see.

Animal Cruelty, Turtles and Dugong Mr ELMES (Noosa—LNP) (12.02 pm): I rise today on a matter of great public importance to Queenslanders who are revolted by cruelty to and mistreatment of animals. I invite members with laptops in the House today to go to my website—www.glenelmes.com.au—and look at the link about dugongs and turtles to see why I have brought these graphic scenes before the House. This YouTube video taken in October 2009 shows a turtle on its back, clearly still alive, in the wash and having its flippers cut off. One can only imagine, as the water turns red with its blood, the agony it is in as it is carved up alive. On 9 March I asked the Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability a question on notice as to how many people her department had charged and/or prosecuted for illegal dugong and turtle fishing in North Queensland. I also asked about the convictions and penalties by year. The minister responded that in total there had been 19 reports with no convictions and 12 still under investigation. What exactly are the four Labor members in Far North Queensland doing with their time? The members for Cairns, Barron River, Mulgrave and Cook clearly have their earplugs in, the telephones off the hook and the front doors locked. Do they know about the 5.15 pm daily flight from Horn Island? They clearly do not know that on many occasions this flight carries eskies full of dugong and turtle meat. The staff at the Cairns Airport do. They have seen it. They have reported it. A quote from the Cairns Post of 24 March 2010 states—

Aborigines have the right to kill limited turtle and dugong with a permit for ceremonial purposes in recognition of a 40,000 year old custom. We on this side of the House agree and would never want to take away from traditional practices by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander inhabitants. But just as the tinnie with the outboard motor has replaced the bark canoe, then so, too, can refrigeration replace the barbaric custom as shown on this video. It can replace the custom of placing hooks through turtle shells and then tying them to a tree in the shallows and returning periodically to carve more meat off a live animal just to keep the meat fresh. As RSPCA Chief Inspector Mike Pecic says—

We can’t do this alone. We’re a charity and yet it appears we’re the only organisation that is taking this matter seriously. A newspaper article in the Cairns Post of 24 March states that Minister Garrett had posted a liaison officer to work with Indigenous communities to try to stem a practice clearly out of control. However, so pitiful is the state’s contribution to protection of the environment in Far North Queensland that we have just one ranger who has responsibility for more than 240,000 hectares of land and 29 kilometres of coastline. This shows a government clearly more interested in staff pushing policies and spin in the south-east corner than in direct action in Far North Queensland. In September 2009 an interview was conducted with the Premier and Ministers Jones and Garrett. The Premier commented along the lines that she had heard rumours of overfishing and ill- treatment of dugongs and turtles but no action was planned. I was in Cairns in September last year and the stories abounded throughout the community. Indeed, one of the issues I addressed on John Mackenzie’s radio program was exactly this, yet we have heard nothing from the four Labor members who apparently represent Far North Queensland. The LNP supports the rights of traditional owners to hunt traditional food for consumption at the point of capture for ceremonial purposes. We do not support, and nor does the community, the transportation in eskies of dugong and turtle meat for consumption by others, be they friends or relatives, or the commercial black market activities where this meat is sold for $50 a kilo. Regardless of whether you have lived here for 40,000 years or just five minutes, you are bound by the same rules of human decency towards animals as anyone else. In her answer to me the minister asks what I would do. My response is simple: enforce the laws that exist now, get staff out of their Brisbane offices and into Far North Queensland, deal fairly with traditional owners, close down the transport of meat, close down the black market. I really do wonder if any animal in Queensland is safe from this Labor government, be they dugongs and turtles in Far North Queensland, dingoes on Fraser Island or koalas in the south-east corner. 13 Apr 2010 Matters of Public Interest 1249

Population Growth Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (12.07 pm): Queensland is unique, with a diverse landscape, strong economy, great sense of community identity and lifestyle that attracts many visitors and residents alike to our wonderful state. With such a great environment and enviable lifestyle, it is not surprising that people want to move here. About 2,000 people every week make the journey to Queensland and call our great state their new home. However, such large people movement demands escalating infrastructure support, from roads and schools to hospitals and employment. With fewer than three persons on average per household, we also have to build more than 600 dwellings each and every week just to accommodate the newcomers. This creates a huge number of challenges that we have to face and find solutions for. Seventy per cent of these 2,000 newcomers are coming to the south-east, and over the next 20 years Queensland’s population is expected to rise from 4.4 million to somewhere between 5.7 million and seven million people. Queensland has one-fifth of Australia’s population at this stage, yet we have one-quarter of the entire country’s growth. That is why the Premier is leading the state and in fact the country for debate and discussion regarding population growth. The Bligh government has been leading the country in growth management. Our regional plans, particularly the South East Queensland Regional Plan, provide long-term vision which provides certainty and stability. Additionally, we have a 20-year infrastructure plan with $124 billion worth of infrastructure which anticipates growth. Growth involves balancing many competing interests for government, including producing sufficient infrastructure and maintaining green space for our environment, housing affordability, community stability and adequate social services. Recently, the Premier went to the people and stakeholders in two ways: firstly, by conducting a people’s question time on growth; and, secondly, by participating in the Queensland government’s Growth Management Summit, which was a very successful forum. The Growth Management Summit was called by the Premier to provide an opportunity for the government, industry and the community to jointly explore options for growth management for the entire state. The summit brought together people who had different perspectives about the issue of growth management. This summit has been an agenda setter and has led to intense debate across the state about Queensland’s future growth and how the government is to manage it. The people of my electorate within Redland City are also engaging in this great debate. Redland City has one of the few urban koala populations in the country, but we are loving them to death. Without successful intervention, it is estimated that koalas will become extinct in the next few years. We also have the highest concentration of tradies in the whole of Queensland living in Capalaba and Alexandra Hills. They need the housing industry to provide jobs and, therefore, food on the table and security for their families. We also need local jobs for local people to halt the 60 per cent of Redlanders who are driving out of the city each and every working day. These are just some examples of the conflicts and challenges that we are facing as a community. That is why on Wednesday, 7 April, I was honoured to moderate a population debate for Redlands residents, hosted by the Redlands Institute. The Hon. Sterling Hinchliffe, the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, was a participant in this debate and raised many valid points for the Redlands community. Simon Baltis represented the environmental sector and as well there was Martin Zaltrone and Marcus Brown from the UDIA and the building industry. One thing is certain from this debate: the people of Redlands are keen to explore the possibility of managing growth without sacrificing the lifestyle and environment that Redlands is famous for. Every one of us leaves a carbon footprint. The question is whether that footprint is large or small. Every one of us has a negative impact on our environment through consuming air, emitting carbon dioxide, consuming resources and consuming energy. But every one of us also creates employment and economic growth through our consumption. That is why our community needs to be informed. We need consultation and we need to hold discussions so that, as a community, we are able to make informed decisions about this important topic. Our community owes it to itself to understand these issues from local and regional perspectives so that it is able to drive change from an informed position. I commend the Premier on the fantastic work that she is doing to make sure that Queensland is the leader of the growth debate in this country. Springbrook Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (12.12 pm): Today, I again rise to speak on behalf of the residents of Springbrook, who are still waiting for answers from this tricky Labor state government on the future of their mountain. It has now been more than four years of what appears to be a surreptitious attempt by this Labor government to buy up as many houses and businesses as possible on Springbrook, under the guise of environmental protection, as part of the heritage listed national park that surrounds the residents. 1250 Matters of Public Interest 13 Apr 2010

The Springbrook Plateau has a total of 160 acreage allotments, with many being purchased in the 2008-09 state government $40 million buy-up of Springbrook. Owing to the secrecy of this buy-up by the Beattie-Bligh government, despite repeated requests the residents and I are still awaiting advice on the total number of properties to be purchased. There are only 360 house blocks in Springbrook, with all subdivisions of properties ceasing in the late 1960s to preserve the rural charm and tourism attraction of the area. The 700-strong community of Springbrook has been thrown into turmoil with the closure of several national park tracks, the state government’s buy-up of land and last year’s eight-week closure of Springbrook Road, which had a severe effect on local businesses. Several businesses have closed as a direct result of these events and a recent report by the Gold Coast City Council shows clearly that the remaining businesses were suffering from a marked decrease in visitor numbers. On 7 August 2007 in this place the former member, under pressure from local anger at the way in which the buy-up was occurring, said— But some people are misrepresenting the government’s intentions and making wild claims that are hurting local business and putting unnecessary fear into the minds of local families. They are saying that the government is buying businesses in order to shut down the mountain’s economy and its community ... sales were brokered by a local land agent for properties primarily already on the market and the market value was paid. That is an absolute untruth. RPR data up until the end of 2009 shows clearly that properties were purchased at three times per hectare more than they were in 2006—in the middle of an economic downturn. We have heard repeatedly this state Labor government blaming the state of Queensland’s finances on the global economic crisis. Yet here we have a government purchasing land at three times its value. It is no wonder we have a budget in deficit. In addition, on 7 August 2007 in this place the residents were told by the former member— ... the government enlisted the expertise of the pre-eminent experts in rainforest conservation ... This will be overseen by a reference group made up of representatives from relevant agencies such as the EPA, the Gold Coast City Council, environment and community organisations, chambers of commerce, local business and community leaders. The residents of Springbrook have the right to know how this government can justify the purchase of these lands when no environmental benefit so far has been seen—other than an increase in feral cats and lantana! Repeater Station Road is now a very quiet road, given that there are very few residents left living there as a result of this buy-up. This buy-up has been done by stealth and in secrecy. No public consultation was ever conducted with the residents and as late as last week their questions about how many properties were, and continue to be, purchased have been met with stony silences or inaccuracies. Last month an expression of interest was advertised in the Courier-Mail for the demolition and recycling of residential dwellings in South-East Queensland. I asked for a copy of the tender documentation and was referred to the Minister for Public Works. Yet, two weeks later, I have not heard a peep—not even the courtesy of an acknowledgement. So the residents and I do not even know how many homes in Springbrook this government plans to demolish. In fact, last week when the minister was asked by the Gold Coast Bulletin which houses in Springbrook would be demolished he refused to answer their questions. These homes were perfectly habitable. There was nothing wrong with them and they have since been left to deteriorate and rot. On the Gold Coast, approximately 10,000 people are on the waiting list for public housing. These houses could have been used as temporary accommodation dwellings for a number of needy families. Local residents have taken photographs of these houses during this three-year period so that they can show how these houses have deteriorated over that time. These houses could also have been used for emergency housing or as shelters for battered and abused wives and children. The residents of Springbrook have grown tired of asking the Premier and her ministers what their real plan is for Springbrook. ‘Wanted’ posters are now popping up all over Springbrook seeking answers to the acquisition, closure and demolition of land, homes and businesses on Springbrook Mountain and I table the document. Tabled paper: Wanted poster for Premier Anna Bligh regarding Springbrook Mountain [2040]. I again call on this government to come clean with its real plans for Springbrook. The residents of Springbrook have the right to know about these issues, which have an effect on their lives and which will continue to have an effect on their lives until this government comes clean.

Shen Neng 1 Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (12.17 pm): For those who follow the Christian calendar, 3 April 2010 was Easter Saturday, but it was very nearly disaster day for our reef. That is the day that the Shen Neng 1 ran on to Douglas Shoal, which is 70 kilometres east of Yeppoon. There was reported to be only four tons of oil discharged, but, under the metric system, that is 4,000 litres of heavy fuel oil that was discharged. With prevailing winds and tides, that oil could have landed right on the pristine beaches north of Yeppoon and at Shoalwater Bay. 13 Apr 2010 Matters of Public Interest 1251

All of the people who travel in ships off the Queensland coast, and particularly those ships that fly under flags of convenience or recognised flags, never, ever seem to take into the account the cost to the Commonwealth taxpayer, the Queensland taxpayer, or even local government taxpayers if there is an incident. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority, Maritime Safety Queensland—or MSQ—the police, emergency services and the Rockhampton Regional Council have been involved. Every person in our community has been affected by the irresponsible operation of this ship. I can say here quite freely that every one of us should thank whatever God of the sea and nature that we believe in for the weather conditions that prevailed over the last week which allowed people to take action. We have seen the footage on television, but nobody has taken into account the sheer weight of numbers of people who are responsible for the clean-up. As soon as the matter was known, the Rockhampton Regional Council disaster management group was mobilised. It has had response groups ready to move to any beaches if there has been any oil contamination. It has also had equipment available for rapid response. I think that everyone should give credit to the Rockhampton Regional Council, particularly as it has received so much criticism for being one of the amalgamated councils. I can tell those doubters that it really does work. Parks and Wildlife moved into action with contingency plans to retrieve, rehabilitate and care for any animals and flora affected by any oil spill. As we heard from the Premier this morning, the ship was refloated last night and constant surveillance is being undertaken. It is currently moored off Barren Island, which is 18 kilometres east of Great Keppel Island, so that all damage can be assessed. People seem to forget that our oceans harbour so much important life which supports our nation and the whole world. Any person who puts that in danger deserves the full wrath of the law. The miscreants who have caused the damage to our wildlife and physical environment should take into account the cost of cleaning up. That will be a cost to Queensland and the Commonwealth. They also endanger our maritime safety operators. Air and sea pilots, tug and vessel operators, emergency services personnel and conservation and wildlife officers put themselves in the way of danger to make sure they can mitigate the amount of damage that is caused. We heard from the Premier this morning that the penalties for people who either forget or do not want to comply with their obligations to the Queensland and Australian taxpayers have been increased fivefold. I want to know that every cent of the cost that has come from the operation of the Shen Neng 1 is recovered from the wrongdoers. If people such as this want to operate in Australian waters, they circumvent our laws at their peril. It is high time that we jumped on these people to make sure that these sorts of things do not ever happen again. Mary River Bridge, Tiaro Mr FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (12.22 pm): I rise to bring to the attention of the House this morning the plight of people in Tiaro in relation to the Mary River Bridge. The current bridge was built in 1933 and is one of only two S-bend bridges in Queensland. It is now 76 years old and is entirely unsuitable for today’s traffic. It has concrete pylons topped by timber supports and decking and a thin layer of bitumen. It is believed that one of the present problems is that the timber cords and decking have rotted over the years without detection or repair and that the complete decking support structure and decking will have to be replaced at enormous cost and waste. It is also a single-lane bridge that has no safety rails. It is ironic that the department has allowed the public to use it for years without any concern for safety, yet the first thing the repair team did was to erect temporary safety rails on each side of the carriageway before commencing any work. As a former resident of Tiaro I have driven over that bridge many, many times. The first time I ever drove over it I said to my wife, ‘You wouldn’t want to do that if you’d been to the pub.’ One of the problems with this bridge is that it can be submerged for up to 10 days at a time, depending on the level of flood and the continuity of upstream rain. Even after the water level recedes, bridge access is often denied for up to a further three days until the Department of Transport and Main Roads can get someone out to inspect the bridge before allowing it to open to traffic. I ask members who live in Brisbane to consider this: it is the only cross-river bridge access between Emery’s Bridge at Gundiah and Maryborough—a distance in excess of 50 kilometres. That has major impacts for people who live on the western side of that bridge, which is virtually right in the town of Tiaro. Mungar Road, including the bridge, is the only alternative route capable of taking heavy traffic between Tiaro and Maryborough should the Bruce Highway be closed for any reason. People might say that that is no big deal, but let me tell members that, unfortunately, we have a tremendously high level of major road accidents between Maryborough and Tiaro. I have regularly seen the Bruce Highway cut there and traffic re-routed through Mungar and over the bridge. The reality is that since August 2003 I have raised in this parliament the plight of the residents of Tiaro in relation to the bridge. I have lodged petitions in this parliament that were gathered by the Tiaro and District Chamber of Commerce. Now we have a projected closure of four months, beginning in March and ending in June. It may be even longer, depending on findings and weather and so forth. It is 1252 Matters of Public Interest 13 Apr 2010 an absolute shambles. It is completely fracturing the Tiaro district. The social fabric of the district is disrupted, with community, charitable and support groups having to indefinitely cancel meetings. Community capacity is beginning to disintegrate. Consider this if you live in Brisbane: residents on the western side of the river within a few kilometres of Tiaro town now have to travel an extra 120 kilometres a day to access the town instead of two or three kilometres. Most will practically patronise Maryborough facilities instead of travelling the extra distance to and from Tiaro. Whilst I am glad of that for Maryborough, it is a disaster for the small shops and businesses in Tiaro. Imagine if your children had to travel an extra 120 kilometres a day on the school bus. Travel time is obviously remarkably increased. Workers from each side of the river are required to travel an extra 120 kilometres a day. Elderly and disabled people who find it difficult to cope with change will have to travel an extra 120 kilometres per day. There will be no access to the western side of the river for emergency services. This could have 24/7 life-threatening consequences. We need the minister to act very quickly to sort out this iniquitous situation and deliver some certainty to the people of Tiaro, who so desperately rely on that bridge to be able to connect the western and eastern sides of the Tiaro community. Cairns, Social Housing Mr WETTENHALL (Barron River—ALP) (12.27 pm): The decision to locate social housing at Palm Cove and Trinity Park, both suburbs of Cairns in the electorate of Barron River, has generated a bitter debate in the community between supporters and opponents of social housing. Residents have formed associations to oppose the developments, held public meetings and protests and taken out full- page advertisements in the Cairns Post to prosecute their arguments. They do not have unanimous support in their individual communities but, as best such matters can be judged, they have strong support. Each development has been approved under the federal government’s economic stimulus plan. Although some say the global financial crisis is over and there is no longer a need for government stimulus, I cannot agree that that is the case in Cairns. In our region unemployment is running at around 12.5 per cent, still well above the state and national figures. In the far north the construction industry, along with tourism, has been hit hard by the economic downturn. Australian and Queensland government construction projects have kept bread on the table for hundreds of Cairns working families. Elected representatives have been lobbied hard for additional government support to be provided at this critical time in the economic cycle. The social housing projects at Trinity Park and Palm Cove themselves will provide jobs for 100 workers. Opponents of the developments argue that the developments are too remote from services such as supermarkets, medical services and other specialist supports and that the configuration and design of the multiunit projects are unsuitable. It is perfectly legitimate for residents to raise such concerns, and I believe many are genuinely concerned for the welfare of those who will be housed in these new apartments. In the end, however, questions about access to services such as Centrelink, doctors, supermarkets and public transport are questions of degree. The northern beaches area is well serviced by a range of public and private services including transport, medical and dental clinics, a community health centre, primary and secondary schools, a university, police, fire and ambulance stations, libraries and a host of sporting and recreational facilities. At Trinity Park itself, a short walk from the new development, construction of a new purpose-built community centre funded by the Bligh government is shortly to commence. Whilst there may be locations where some of those facilities might be closer, I cannot accept that, because they are not within a stone’s throw of the new homes, the chosen locations are inappropriate. Of the some 2,000 people on the waiting list for social housing in the Cairns area, 663 have expressed a preference to live on the northern beaches. Why should it be assumed by anyone that their preference is misguided or ill informed? I can understand that residents are aggrieved because the projects have been approved without public consultation. I would have preferred it to have been otherwise, but that is the law where, as is the case here, the projects have been determined not to be substantially inconsistent with the local planning scheme. I have represented the concerns of the residents to both the Premier and the minister, arranged for the minister to meet with them in Cairns and I am representing their concerns today in this chamber. As a result of those meetings, the minister has given various assurances to residents about the projects. However, just as I have a duty to represent those who oppose the projects, I have a duty to represent the 663 people who want to live in the northern beaches but who cannot. I have one additional duty, which is my duty to defend one very basic and fundamental Aussie principle. That principle is that there should be no place in our nation where someone by reason of their lack of wealth, a disability or who are elderly, frail or vulnerable is made to feel unwelcome. Therefore, I utterly reject and condemn the view that has been expressed that the residents of those new homes will not be welcomed and never will be welcomed. 13 Apr 2010 Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction Reform and Modernisation Amendment Bill 1253

Furthermore, I utterly reject and condemn the comments made by the member for Burdekin, who is currently the LNP spokesperson for community services, who has described these social housing projects as ghettoes. Whether or not the location chosen for the new homes is the best and whether or not the process could have been improved, I for one will be there to welcome the new residents of Trinity Park and Palm Cove.

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL JURISDICTION REFORM AND MODERNISATION AMENDMENT BILL

Message from Governor Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (12.31 pm): I present a message from Her Excellency the Governor. The Speaker read the following message— MESSAGE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL JURISDICTION REFORM AND MODERNISATION AMENDMENT BILL 2010 Constitution of Queensland 2001, section 68 I, PENELOPE ANNE WENSLEY, Governor, recommend to the Legislative Assembly a Bill intituled— A Bill for an Act to amend the Bail Act 1980, the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, the Criminal Code, the Criminal Practice Rules 1999, the District Court of Queensland Act 1967, the Drug Court Act 2000, the Drugs Misuse Act 1986, the Evidence Act 1977, the Financial Accountability Act 2009, the Justices Act 1886, the Magistrates Act 1991, the Magistrates Courts Act 1921, the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, the Police Service Administration Act 1990, the Property Law Act 1974, the Public Trustee Act 1978, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999, the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991, the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 and the Youth Justice Act 1992, to reform and modernise civil and criminal jurisdiction and for other particular purposes. (sgd) GOVERNOR Date: 13 APR 2010 Tabled paper: Message, dated 13 April 2010, from Her Excellency the Governor recommending the Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction Reform and Modernisation Amendment Bill [2041]. First Reading Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (12.31 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Bail Act 1980, the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, the Criminal Code, the Criminal Practice Rules 1999, the District Court of Queensland Act 1967, the Drug Court Act 2000, the Drugs Misuse Act 1986, the Evidence Act 1977, the Financial Accountability Act 2009, the Justices Act 1886, the Magistrates Act 1991, the Magistrates Courts Act 1921, the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, the Police Service Administration Act 1990, the Property Law Act 1974, the Public Trustee Act 1978, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999, the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991, the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 and the Youth Justice Act 1992, to reform and modernise civil and criminal jurisdiction and for other 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: Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction Reform and Modernisation Amendment Bill 2010 [2042]. Tabled paper: Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction Reform and Modernisation Amendment Bill 2010, explanatory notes [2043]. Second Reading Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (12.35 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The Australian Labor Party has a well-deserved reputation as the party of reform and the Bligh government is continuing this tradition as it seeks to respond to emerging challenges and make decisions that will help build a safe, modern and progressive state. This approach extends to the justice portfolio where we have been implementing various reforms. This bill contains the government’s first 1254 Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction Reform and Modernisation Amendment Bill 13 Apr 2010 stage of reforms in response to the review by the honourable Martin Moynihan AO QC of the civil and criminal justice system in Queensland. The government has adopted a staged implementation program in response to the report. The reforms aim to make more effective use of public resources to deliver improvements across the justice system, thereby delivering improved justice to Queenslanders. Extensive consultation was undertaken by Mr Moynihan. Last year the government released a draft bill for public comment and a number of submissions were received. Changes have been made to the original draft bill to reflect the outcomes of that consultation. Stakeholders support the need for reform and the underlying objectives of the proposals. However, this consultation has reinforced that, given the extensive and significant nature of the reforms, implementation raises some complex and challenging issues. In particular, the proposals to expand the jurisdiction of Magistrates Courts to deal with indictable offences have been limited. The amendments in the bill, however, ensure that appropriate matters are dealt with by Magistrates Courts and serious cases continue to be dealt with in the District and Supreme Courts. Specifically, the bill creates a new category of indictable offences in the Criminal Code which must be dealt with by Magistrates Courts unless a magistrate is not able to adequately sentence the person or, recognising the importance of jury trials, is satisfied, on application by the defendant, that exceptional circumstances justify why the matter should not be dealt with summarily. This new category will encompass all indictable offences in the Criminal Code with a maximum penalty of three years or less. Consistent with recommendations 34 and 35 in Mr Moynihan’s report, property offences such as stealing which have a maximum penalty above three years imprisonment must also be dealt with on a summary basis if the value of property involved is less than $30,000, subject to some exceptions. This $30,000 threshold recognises changes to the value of money and is in line with the approach taken in South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory.

Consistent with the current provisions in the Criminal Code, those property offences involving a value of $30,000 or more will also be able to be dealt with summarily if the defendant pleads guilty. However, in line with the recommendations, the value is not relevant for wilful damage offences. Serious property offences excluded from the new mandatory summary disposition category include, for example, robbery, arson and corruption. While some property offences in the new mandatory category have a maximum penalty above the current three years imprisonment that can be imposed by a magistrate, these offences are already subject to summary disposition under section 552B of the Criminal Code unless the defendant elects to be tried by a jury. Furthermore, not all cases will warrant the maximum penalty. Mr Moynihan found that at present defendants frequently elect to proceed on indictment only to plead guilty in the District Court and receive a penalty of less than three years imprisonment for offences involving minor behaviour, such as stealing a wallet.

Having the Supreme and District Courts deal with matters that can be fairly, justly and appropriately dealt with by the state’s professional, qualified and experienced magistrates is a wasteful use of costly judicial, prosecutorial and other resources. For victims of crime, the reforms will also mean that cases can be resolved earlier. The government will monitor the expanded jurisdiction of the Magistrates Courts and, if the reforms are successful, the government will consider increasing the summary jurisdiction of magistrates further, as Mr Moynihan recommended.

The bill will also amend the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 to expand the prosecution’s current election to have matters dealt with by Magistrates Courts. This expansion will apply to offences for possession of a dangerous drug which attract a maximum penalty above 15 years imprisonment. However, this election will only apply in circumstances where the offence does not involve a commercial purpose. Currently, the prosecution’s election for summary disposition of possession charges is limited to offences that carry a maximum penalty of 15 years or less. However, there are a number of offences which attract a higher maximum penalty but involve very minor criminal behaviour. For example, currently a charge of possession of three grams of ecstasy for personal use must be dealt with by the Supreme Court even where the defendant has no previous criminal history. This is not an efficient or effective use of our justice system resources. Mr Moynihan noted that many criminal cases that can be disposed of by magistrates in other states and territories are committed to the District or Supreme Court in Queensland. He also found that under the current framework the majority of sentences for these types of cases were within the current three-year maximum penalty that a magistrate may impose. Allowing more minor drug offences to be dealt with by magistrates also provides offenders with an opportunity to access diversion initiatives, such as the Drug Court. Speedier finalisation in the Magistrates Courts also reduces the risk of reoffending. 13 Apr 2010 Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction Reform and Modernisation Amendment Bill 1255

The government will continue to closely monitor the impacts of the reforms in relation to the Drugs Misuse Act 1986, as it will all of the reforms it is implementing in this first stage. If, over time, they prove effective, the government will consider expanding the reforms to production and supply offences as recommended by Mr Moynihan. Based on Mr Moynihan’s recommendations, the government also proposed amendments in relation to the early entry of a plea of guilty by accused persons. However, given the recent decision to establish a Sentencing Advisory Council for Queensland, it is considered appropriate that further advice be obtained from the council about these proposals in the context of broader community sentencing issues. I will now outline some of the other key amendments in the bill. The bill will increase the monetary limits for the civil jurisdiction of the District Court and the Magistrates Courts. The District Court limit will be increased from $250,000 to $750,000 and the Magistrates Courts limit from $50,000 to $150,000. The current limits have not been amended in over 10 years. The changes reflect inflation and other relevant factors. To ensure that Magistrates Courts have additional capacity to deal with these changes, the bill also includes amendments to transfer the jurisdiction for workers compensation appeals from industrial magistrates to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission where dual appeal rights currently exist. The bill also amends the cost scales for the Magistrates Courts in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 to bring them into line with the District and Supreme Courts, given the new monetary limit. A broader review of the adequacy of the cost scales will also be undertaken by the Rules Committee in consultation with the legal profession. The reforms to the civil jurisdictions of Queensland courts will provide increased access to justice. At the other end of the scale, they will free up the Supreme Court to deal with major and complex cases. Under the bill the District Court’s general criminal jurisdiction will be increased to all indictable offences with a maximum penalty of 20 years or less. Currently, subject to some exceptions, it only has jurisdiction for offences with a maximum penalty of 14 years or less. This amendment will enable a number of Commonwealth offences and drug offences to be dealt with in the District Court rather than in the Supreme Court. This brings Queensland into line with other Australian jurisdictions. Another significant and long overdue aspect of reform relates to the committal process. For more than a decade there has been a steady trend towards reform of committals around Australia and overseas. Queensland and the Northern Territory are the only jurisdictions that still allow unrestricted cross-examination of witnesses. Mr Moynihan found that most of the historical reasons for committals are no longer relevant. He also found that in a large number of cases agreement to proceed by a paper committal occurs at the last minute. The costs of this are borne by many people, including witnesses and victims, not just the court and defendants. Mr Moynihan recognised that committal hearings are sometimes justified. When used appropriately they can help to clarify issues, refine charges, negotiate pleas and identify weak cases. However, unfettered access in all cases cannot be sustained because it is inefficient and ineffective. It is not the government’s intention to abolish committals, as has occurred in some other Australian jurisdictions. On the contrary, the reforms in this bill seek to make them more useful and productive. The amendments restrict the calling and cross-examination of prosecution witnesses unless the prosecution consents or the magistrate is satisfied there are substantial reasons in the interests of justice why such witnesses should be called. This will ensure that witnesses cannot be called and cross- examined on a general ‘fishing expedition’ by the defence. Requiring justification for committal hearings will ensure that parties turn their minds to issues at an early stage. New South Wales legislation has been used as a model for the test included in this bill for justifying the calling and cross-examination of a witness. This test was recommended by Mr Moynihan given it has been in place for 20 years, considered by the New South Wales courts and is generally regarded as working satisfactorily. Where no prosecution witnesses are called or cross-examined and a defendant is legally represented and on bail, the Magistrates Courts’ registry will be able to do an administrative committal on the papers. The bill also introduces specific powers enabling courts to deal with noncompliance with disclosure obligations in criminal cases. Mr Moynihan acknowledged that proper and timely disclosure is an important part of the criminal justice system. It provides the accused with knowledge of the case against them and so is the foundation of a fair trial. Proper and timely disclosure also has a number of outcomes which make criminal justice procedure more effective. While Mr Moynihan recommended that the provisions for prosecution disclosure in the Criminal Code, which were introduced in 2003, should be redrafted to be simpler, more coherent and consistent, the current provisions were the result of extensive consultation and represent an agreed position. Consultation on the draft bill highlighted that there is a need for continuing examination of amendments in this area and reinforced that the most crucial issue is the need for improved understanding of the current obligations and compliance with them. The Queensland Police Service has committed to implementing appropriate training to address these issues. 1256 Racing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 13 Apr 2010

Further, the bill gives teeth to the disclosure provisions by giving specific power to judicial officers to issue directions to ensure compliance with obligations and impose sanctions for failing to comply with directions. To address concerns raised during consultation on the draft bill, the directions power includes a specific provision for the court, on application by the defence, to require production of an affidavit from an arresting officer about disclosure and to allow cross-examination about the contents of the affidavit. These new provisions will, however, be closely monitored to ensure that they operate effectively and are not abused. Some other reforms are also included in the bill that are not based on Mr Moynihan’s report but which will improve consistency between the courts. For example, the bill includes amendments to allow the state’s Magistrates Courts to use verdict and judgement records for issuing orders, consistent with the Supreme and District Courts. Amendments are also proposed to allow a bail application to be made by remote communication device to a magistrate at a location determined by the Chief Magistrate which is outside the relevant district. This amendment will provide additional flexibility to the Chief Magistrate to manage consideration of urgent bail applications over public holidays, vacation periods and on other occasions such as when a resident magistrate is ill. These amendments recognise that bail is a serious court process and provide that applications be made only if certain conditions are met. Some other miscellaneous amendments are also included in the bill. The amendments to the Public Trustee Act 1978 will make it easier for Queenslanders to locate any unclaimed money held by the state. The bill also amends the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 to clarify that an adjudicator does not have jurisdiction in debt recovery matters. The bill amends the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 to clarify the registrar’s powers in relation to the suspension of driver licences and reinstatement of debts. Finally, the bill includes an amendment to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 to rectify an inconsistency relating to the recovery of costs. The second stage of reforms in response to Mr Moynihan’s report will see an overhaul and consolidation of criminal justice procedure legislation to ensure efficient, consistent and modern processes are in place. The government will be continuing to consult stakeholders and the community on the development of this legislation. Implementation of outstanding recommendations in Mr Moynihan’s report, including, as I noted earlier, further reforms to expand the jurisdiction of Magistrates Courts to hear and determine indictable offences as stated in the government’s response to the report, will be considered following an evaluation of the impacts of these initial stages. This approach will provide a solid evidence base for consideration of further reform. The reforms in this bill and those to be delivered in the second stage are a significant step towards ensuring more efficient and effective delivery of justice in our state. The Bligh government is committed to the ongoing improvement and reform of our justice system. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Springborg, adjourned.

RACING AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Message from Governor Hon. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading) (12.48 pm): I present a message from Her Excellency the Governor. The Deputy Speaker read the following message— MESSAGE RACING AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2010 Constitution of Queensland 2001, section 68 I, PENELOPE ANNE WENSLEY, Governor, recommend to the Legislative Assembly a Bill intituled— A Bill for an Act to amend the Racing Act 2002, the Raging Regulation 2003, the Gaming Machine Act 1991, the Wagering Act 1998 and the Wagering Regulation 1999 for particular purposes. (sgd) GOVERNOR Date: 13 APR 2010 Tabled paper: Message, dated 13 April 2010, from Her Excellency the Governor recommending the Racing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 [2044]. 13 Apr 2010 Racing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1257

First Reading Hon. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading) (12.49 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Racing Act 2002, the Racing Regulation 2003, the Gaming Machine Act 1991, the Wagering Act 1998 and the Wagering Regulation 1999 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: Racing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 [2045]. Tabled paper: Racing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010, explanatory notes [2046]. Second Reading Hon. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading) (12.49 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to introduce amendments to the Racing Act 2002 which will amalgamate the three existing racing control bodies, Queensland Racing, Harness Racing Queensland and Greyhounds Queensland, into one control body, known as Racing Queensland Ltd. It is no secret that the racing industry’s capital infrastructure has become run down and threatens the competitive ability of the industry going forward. The Bligh government has committed to the largest injection of capital from the government in the history of Queensland’s racing industry. In excess of $80 million will be provided over four years from July 2010 to June 2014. These funds will be delivered by a racing industry levy of 50 per cent of net wagering tax collected by the government. The current multiple control body structure results in duplication of effort and prevents decisions being made in the best interests of the entire Queensland racing industry. To ensure this money delivers the best possible outcomes for the industry and a coordinated approach is taken to industry management and development, a single control body for the Queensland racing industry will be established. This new combined control body, Racing Queensland Ltd, will be the racing control body for all three codes of racing and will act in the best interests of the entire racing industry. This bill will amend the Racing Act 2002, known as the Racing Act, to: • establish this one control body for the three codes of racing; • ensure that the new control body has the necessary powers to manage the three codes of racing; • abolish entities established under the Racing Act that can be established administratively by the control body; • reduce the administrative burden and costs to a control body; and • clarify provisions relating to taking and dealing with samples from licensed animals. The bill also amends the Wagering Act 1998 and the Gaming Machine Act 1991 to fund and enable the payment of monies under the Racing Industry Capital Development Scheme. The bill transfers the staff, assets, liabilities and responsibilities of the current thoroughbred, harness and greyhound control bodies to the new control body. The bill ensures employees earning total remuneration of up to $100,000 per annum will be employed on the terms and conditions of employment at least equivalent to their current arrangements for at least two years. To ensure stability within the new control body structure, the initial directors of Racing Queensland Ltd will hold office until 2014 and then two directors will retire on a rotational basis every two years. The initial directors of Racing Queensland Ltd will be the current five directors from the existing thoroughbred control body, one from the harness control body and one from the greyhound control body. The directors of Racing Queensland Ltd will be the only members of the company. It has been shown that a model which provides membership of the control body company to persons and entities licensed by the control body does not work and is not in the best interests of the racing industry. 1258 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 13 Apr 2010

After expiry of the initial term, a selection panel will be responsible for appointing directors to the control body. It will be made up of— • the chair or deputy chair of the control body; • one person who is Fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors who is a sitting member of an ASX Top 200 listed company; and • one person appointed by the director-general of the department responsible for racing. In making decisions, the directors of Racing Queensland Ltd will not only be bound by the requirements of the Corporations Act 2001 and the Racing Act 2002 but will also have to have regard to the best interests of the thoroughbred, harness and greyhound codes as a whole. The remuneration of the directors can only be varied with the approval of the chief executive officer of the department responsible for racing. The constitution of Racing Queensland Ltd establishes advisory committees for non-TAB racing in all codes, so maintaining thoroughbred-specific bodies in legislation is now redundant. The requirement for the thoroughbred control body to pay seven per cent of its net UNiTAB product fee as prize money for non-TAB racing, or for supporting non-TAB racing, is retained with the necessary percentage amendments made to reflect the new combined control body structure. The expiration of a control body approval every six years results in unnecessary costs and an administrative burden to control bodies. The granting of an approval for an indefinite period rather than for a period of six years will avoid unnecessary costs and reduce the administrative burden to both the control body and government. The bill clarifies the powers of a control body and ensures that it has the necessary powers to effectively operate within the highly competitive and rapidly changing wagering and racing environment. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr McArdle, adjourned.

HEALTH LEGISLATION (HEALTH PRACTITIONER REGULATION NATIONAL LAW) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill Resumed from 25 March (see p. 1176), on motion of Mr Lucas— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—LNP) (12.55 pm): I rise to make a contribution to this bill. I say at the outset that the LNP will be supporting this bill. I thank the minister and his staff for the briefing yesterday allowed to me and my policy adviser. In March 2008 it was COAG which signed an international agreement for a national registration and accreditation scheme for health professionals, thereby establishing a national registration and accreditation scheme itself. This COAG agreement followed recommendations from the Productivity Commission that there should be a single national registration board and a single national accreditation board for health professionals in relation to their education and training. In November 2008 the Health Practitioner Regulation (Administrative Arrangements) National Law Bill 2008, or bill A as it was known, was passed in the Queensland parliament to establish the administrative arrangements for the national scheme. Queensland was the host state for that bill, as it was for the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Bill 2009. That bill was passed by this chamber in 2009. After the successful passage of this, the third and final piece of legislation to establish the national scheme in Queensland, similar legislation will then require passage through all of the other state and territory parliaments of the Commonwealth. The intergovernmental agreement at point 2.6 stated it was agreed to establish the scheme by 1 July 2010 and that Queensland, as I said, was to be the host state. Unfortunately, at this stage the scheme may not be a truly national scheme by 1 July of this year, as indications are that South Australia and Tasmania may not pass the required legislation within the time frame. The intergovernmental agreement, which was the cornerstone of bill A, was, to say the least, a poorly thought out and ludicrous document placing the education and training of health professionals in the hands of state, territory and Commonwealth health ministers and stripping the colleges, professional 13 Apr 2010 SEQ Water (Distribution & Retail Restructuring) & Or Legislation A’ment Bill 1259 bodies and other entities of the power they had exercised so well for many years. The ministerial council established within the intergovernmental agreement has significant powers which overrode the long- term effective service provided by the professions, institutions, colleges and professional organisations. The principal objectives of the national scheme for the regulation of the registration and accreditation of health professionals and students are, firstly, protecting the public by ensuring that only suitably trained and qualified persons are registered; secondly, facilitating workforce mobility by reducing the administrative burden for health professionals; thirdly, facilitating the provision of high- quality education for health practitioners; and, fourthly, facilitating access to services provided by health practitioners in accordance with the public interest. The scheme will cover 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. Initially, 10 professions will come into line on 1 July 2010, with the other four by 1 July 2012. Pursuant to the national scheme, a number of bodies are being established including the ministerial council itself made up of all state and territory health ministers and the federal health minister. The ministerial council will appoint members to the advisory council national board. Secondly, an advisory council is established which provides advice to the ministerial council on national accreditation and registration. Thirdly, a national board was established which exists for each of the 14 health professions. The two major functions of the national boards are the development of registration standards and approved accreditation standards developed by an accreditation authority. The ministerial council can issue policy directions to national boards. Sitting suspended from 1.00 pm to 2.30pm. Debate, on motion of Mr McArdle, adjourned.

SOUTH-EAST QUEENSLAND WATER (DISTRIBUTION AND RETAIL RESTRUCTURING) AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading

SEQ Water (Distribution & Retail Restructuring) & Or Legislation A’ment Bill Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade) (2.30 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the South-East Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail Restructuring) Act 2009, Community Ambulance Cover Act 2003, Environmental Protection Act 1994, Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002, Public Service Act 2008, Standard Plumbing and Drainage Regulation 2003, Sustainable Planning Act 2009, Sustainable Planning Regulation 2009, Transport Infrastructure Act 1994, Water Act 2000 and the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008 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: South-East Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail Restructuring) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill [2047]. Tabled paper: South-East Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail Restructuring) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, explanatory notes [2048]. Second Reading Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade) (2.30 pm): I move—

That the bill be now read a second time. This is the latest step in the Bligh government’s delivery of better water services in South-East Queensland. For the first time, this bill will provide for consistent and mandated standards of customer service in the water sector. It will also ensure the region’s water distribution infrastructure supports the South East Queensland Regional Plan and responds to the region’s growth in a sustainable way. In October last year, I introduced legislation which established three distributor-retailers: Queensland Urban Utilities servicing Brisbane, Ipswich, the Scenic Rim, Somerset and the Lockyer Valley; Allconnex servicing the Gold Coast, Logan and the Redlands; and Unitywater servicing the 1260 SEQ Water (Distribution & Retail Restructuring) & Or Legislation A’ment Bill 13 Apr 2010

Sunshine Coast and Moreton. The South-East Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail Restructuring) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 provides the regulatory framework that will allow the council owned distributor-retailers to commence operations on 1 July 2010. The distributor-regulators will fulfil four key roles. The first key role will be customer service. Distributor-retailers will have a direct interface with customers through issuing water and waste water bills and reading meters. They will also provide information about water use and efficiency. Over the next three years, they will move from council area service standards to guaranteed service standards. South-East Queensland residents will be asked to provide input into the development of the guaranteed service standards. As a result of these reforms, better customer service can be expected over the coming years. The second key role will be planning. Each distributor-retailer will develop a water and waste water network and services plan that aligns with the South East Queensland Regional Plan and council planning schemes. These plans will have a 20-year horizon, ensuring the distribution network meets current needs and future demands. The third key role will be development approvals. Each entity will be responsible for assessing the water and waste water aspects of development applications. Until July 2013, this process will continue to be undertaken by councils, under delegation from the distributor-retailers. This interim arrangement will ensure the reforms do not impact on development approval time frames. From July 2013, this process will be undertaken by the distributor-retailers under a utility model. This will be developed through an industry working group. A design and construction code will be developed to ensure consistent and high infrastructure standards. The fourth key role will be asset management. Distributor-retailers will need to demonstrate how their networks will be constructed and maintained to meet future demand, ensure service standards and protect the environment. This government’s reforms to the water sector will deliver security and long- term sustainability. The reforms are one of the last steps in realising the benefits of the water grid. They build on the government’s investment in a diverse range of supply sources and will establish an efficient and effective distribution and retail sector. From 1 July 2010, the state owned South-East Queensland water grid will be delivering high- quality water to the three council owned distributor-retailers. The distributor-retailers will in turn deliver high-quality and responsive customer services. This bill also amends the Environmental Protection Act 1994 to improve the management of coal seam gas water for LNG projects. The LNG industry has huge potential to generate jobs and investment for Queensland. This bill is part of the government’s plan to ensure this industry is environmentally sustainable. The use of large evaporation dams will no longer be permitted, except where there is no alternative. The bill will be supported by guidelines that will encourage the beneficial use of treated coal seam gas water. In response to the Webbe-Weller review, the bill includes amendments to streamline the process for transitioning category 2 water authorities to alternative institutional structures. A number of category 2 water authorities have expressed a strong interest in moving to new institutional arrangements. The bill amends the Water Act 2000 to: remove the mandatory requirement for the chief executive to give public notice of a proposed amalgamation or dissolution; and provide for relief from transfer duty under the Duties Act 2001 and administrative fees under the Land Act 1994, the Land Title Act 1994 or the Water Act. The bill makes changes to the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008 in relation to dam safety requirements. The amendments will reduce the regulatory burden, particularly for dams in remote locations. They will also ensure dams that incrementally increase in size are properly regulated. The bill will also ensure that waste dams are regulated by the most appropriate act—the Environmental Protection Act. Amendments also give the chief executive power to issue emergency notices in relation to both referable and non-referable dams. The sharing of information about dams will also be authorised in the interests of public safety. This bill also makes a number of clarifying and technical amendments. It amends the recycled water and drinking water regulatory frameworks under the Water Supply Act to: enhance and clarify water quality reporting obligations of recycled water and drinking water providers; transition the regulation of large greywater treatment facilities to the Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002; ensure dual reticulation schemes cannot be exempt from preparing a recycled water management plan; and make other necessary technical and operational amendments. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr McArdle, adjourned. 13 Apr 2010 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 1261

HEALTH LEGISLATION (HEALTH PRACTITIONER REGULATION NATIONAL LAW) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill Resumed from p. 1259, on motion of Mr Lucas— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—LNP) (2.36 pm): Fourthly, the national boards can then create national committees and state and territory boards to exercise their functions. Fifthly, the national office is to provide support for the national board and national committees. Sixthly, the ministerial council or a national agency can appoint an external accreditation agency. If no external agency is appointed the national board can establish a national accreditation committee to help develop accreditation standards. When I started my contribution to the second reading debate I outlined the objectives of the national scheme. No-one in this House would deny that the national scheme will provide hopefully not only better mobility across the nation but also a better system of education, enforcement and credentialling of practitioners. In particular, the fourth idea behind the scheme is to facilitate access to services provided by health practitioners in accordance with the public interest. As I said, the aim of the bill is to quite clearly give practitioners mobility and also the capacity to be better educated. The other concern I have in relation to the national scheme is that, although the scheme puts in place a positive and, I believe, very well reasoned argument, unless we have the infrastructure on the ground, the facilities on the ground, we will have major problems. We can have the best trained doctors in the world working anywhere across this nation but until such time as we have the hospitals, the community hubs and the facilities these doctors cannot deliver the world-class services we need. With respect, it is quite clear that across Queensland we do not have those facilities. In my opinion, we do not have a planning mechanism across the state that is going to deliver to the Gold Coast the hospitals that it needs, the bed numbers that it needs nor the ancillary services that it needs after the new hospital is opened in 2013 or 2014. We know that, at this point in time, the government has not made a determination in relation to what will happen with the current Gold Coast Hospital. Firstly, it is quite clear that that hospital can be used and should be used to facilitate the growth of the population, bed number requirements and other services required as we age. As the health minister has said, the ageing population will continue to be a larger proportion of the people it will need to treat. Secondly, the Sunshine Coast University Hospital is simply a critical hospital as far as this bill is concerned. There is no doubt that 2016-17 is too far into the future in relation to developing that hospital. We are not going to get doctors coming to the Sunshine Coast. We are not going to get resources onto the Sunshine Coast by way of investment from universities between now and 2016-17, and the basic reason is this: the Nambour Hospital simply cannot cater for that growth. It simply cannot provide the resources that these doctors, nurses and allied health professionals will need to provide the best and most efficient service across the region between now and 2016-17. We also have to bear in mind that the catchment area by 2021 will be 660,000 people from the Sunshine Coast and the Wide Bay. Certainly, the government has produced in the past and released by RTI documents that show modelling that at 2016-17 bed numbers in excess of 450 are required, and I acknowledge that different modelling will show to the contrary. At the same time, however, between now and the opening of that hospital in 2016-17 there must be a plan in place to incrementally increase the bed numbers between that opening date and, say, 2021, which is when that threshold of 660,000-odd people will be realised. There must now be in place not just a plan to do that but the budgeting to ensure those bed numbers will be there by 2021 and beyond. In addition, when one considers the situation here in Brisbane with the Queensland Children’s Hospital, there is going to be a problem when that hospital opens because there is no doubt that that hospital on its own will not be able to provide for the needs of children in this state given the incredible increase in numbers of young children between now and 2021. It is also quite clear that there are certain specialities that will not be catered for at the Queensland Children’s Hospital that will remain at the RCH or perhaps elsewhere. There is no doubt about that. There is also no doubt that there is no library or teaching facility of the size of UQ at RCH in the QCH and nor is there a capacity for that to occur. There is also no doubt that there is no capacity akin to the size of the RCH for research at the QCH. That is simply the case. The Queensland Institute of Medical Research is one facility that is located at the RCH. There are also a range of other facilities— and I am happy to debate this point at any time with the health minister or any other person in this House—that will not be in place at the QCH. The problem is this: we are training the doctors in accordance with this national scheme. We are training the doctors to ensure that the national scheme provides the best and brightest brains in this nation, but to do them justice we need to put in place the facilities that are required for them to achieve 1262 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 13 Apr 2010 their best goals. In addition, there is the debate between the states and the national body with regard to funding of future development of health facilities across this nation—that is, the Prime Minister’s proposal that has now been rolled out over a period of one month. Again— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! Member for Caloundra, I am struggling to determine exactly how some of this relates to the bill in question. I have asked for advice and we are both of a similar opinion. Can you give me some advice in relation to exactly what you are referring to in the bill? Mr McARDLE: What I can say, Mr Deputy Speaker— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Because it is a closed title; you do know that? Mr McARDLE: I beg your pardon? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a closed title. It says that this bill is for particular purposes. I have gone through the explanatory notes as well as the second reading speech and I am having difficulty trying to— Mr McARDLE: What the bill relates to is the COAG agreement of 2008, and that COAG agreement puts in place the intergovernmental agreement that has as its four heads of power protecting the public by ensuring suitably qualified trained persons are registered, by facilitating workforce mobility, by the provision of high-quality education, and by putting in place access to services provided by health practitioners in accordance with the public interest. They are the pinnacles under which not this bill— that is, bill C—but bill A and bill B operate. So the whole crux of this bill relates to a COAG document from 2008, which is to better train doctors to put them into facilities to deliver health services. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue while I seek advice. Mr McARDLE: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The other issue, of course, is the development of health hubs. The one on the Sunshine Coast is now going to be blown out to open in 2014. It was promised for 2009, 2011 and 2014. Again, the training to be provided under the intergovernmental agreement of COAG in 2008 would say that these particular health hubs need to be established now to provide the facilities and infrastructure for these doctors and allied health professionals covered by the bill to train properly and to provide the services that are required. As I said, the issue in relation to the provision of health funds to develop the new hospitals—the new pathways—is also an issue that must come under the national agreement in relation to how best to provide health services to this nation, and that is what the COAG agreement was all about. The issue with regard to the proposal by the Prime Minister is simply that this government has not been taken to task on the issues that are important. For example, we have not had a commitment from the health minister that at this point in time no job will be lost—that no nurse, no doctor, no employee of Queensland Health will lose their job—as a consequence of this particular plan being adopted by the states, if it is adopted at COAG next week. In addition, there is a proposal by the Victorian Premier, which is quite at odds and which seems to have been rejected out of hand by this government—that is, giving back our GST without any consideration as to what the long-term implications are going to be. My concern is that once you start that incremental creep it is almost impossible to stop it. The bill before the House is the third and final piece of legislation established in the national scheme and is commonly referred to as bill C. It makes administrative and consequential amendments to legislation across government required to accommodate and reflect the commencement of the national scheme. Specifically, the bill provides for the following. Firstly, it transfers responsibility for administering pharmacy ownership restrictions from the Pharmacists Board of Queensland to Queensland Health because the pharmacy board will be abolished on the commencement of the national scheme. Secondly, it repeals nine health practitioner registration acts. Thirdly, it partially repeals and renames two other registration acts that deal with the registration of professions, transitioning it to the national scheme. Fourthly, it repeals and partially repeals acts establishing administrative mechanisms which support registration boards performing their functions. Fifthly, the bill amends 42 acts to update references affected by the commencement of the national law. Sixthly, it amends the Health Practitioner (Professional Standards) Act, which prescribes for Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, or QCAT, procedural arrangements when hearing matters of discipline under the national law. Seventhly, it contains measures ensuring consistency between the national law and remaining Queensland registration acts, such as allowing Queensland boards to disclose confidential information to relevant policy and public entities if they reasonably believe their registering poses a risk to public health and patient safety. Eighthly, it creates a stand-alone head of power to deal with medical radiation technologists ahead of their transition to the national scheme in 2012. And ninthly, it inserts a regulation-making head of power to allow the Governor in Council to make regulations containing provisions of a transitional nature to ensure the smooth commencement of the national scheme. The ability to make a regulation under Queensland acts will enable Queensland specified transitional issues to be addressed. The bill further amends the Queensland Institute of Medical Research Act. The QIMR Act is currently under review and the amendments are interim measures. The changes allow greater flexibility in the term of the QIMR director’s appointment and allows the chief executive, rather than the minister, 13 Apr 2010 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 1263 to approve agreements entered into by the QIMR. In addition, the bill also amends section 150(5) of the national law relating to health complaint entities such as the HQCC in Queensland. The amendment removes the requirement for health complaint entities to give notice to national boards of any health conduct or performance issues raised during conciliation and other processes. This amendment has resulted from lobbying by health complaints entities that the national law may inadvertently undermine the issue of statutory privilege. The LNP, as I said before, and almost all stakeholders support the concept of a nationally consistent medical practitioner registration scheme. In 2008, the LNP expressed concern in parliament that the new national law established a national agency to vest powers, privileges and immunities of the state relating to health profession standards in a political institution. The ministerial council was accountable to no-one and had a reserve power to give directions to a national board as to the policies to be applied, despite members of the ministerial council having no relevant expertise. Our concerns remain in relation to this issue. Although expressing concern about the 2008— Mr Lucas: We had a bit of a discussion about expertise. Mr McARDLE: A bit like paying nurses. Mr Lucas: Yes, exactly. This morning you reckoned I had expertise in payroll and now I do not have expertise at all. Mr McARDLE: Oddly enough, the minister still cannot guarantee that nurses will be paid. In fact, the minister made the claim that it was not his job to be concerned about paying nurses. It was not his job! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! Member for Caloundra! The member for Caloundra will cease talking about pay issues. They are not within the scope of this bill and the minister will cease interjecting. Mr McARDLE: Although expressing concern about the 2008 administrative arrangements bill, the LNP supported the 2009 national law bill on the basis of the last-minute changes negotiated by the AMA and the stakeholders. Specifically, the final form of the 2009 national law bill watered down the powers of the ministerial council by requiring the council to give consideration to the potential impact of the direction of the quality and safety of health care. There was also a last-minute amendment requiring the ministerial council to publish reasons underlining any direction regarding an accreditation standard. During the debate of the 2009 national law bill, the LNP gave an undertaking to watch closely how the ministerial council exercised its powers and practice and it will continue to do so. I will deal with a number of matters during the consideration in detail. However, I would like to make some comments, firstly, in relation to clause 117, which contains a new section 202 of new part 5, which gives the Governor in Council the power to make regulations. As the minister is aware—and, again, the Legislation Alert reflects this—the parliament is the correct body to deal with the making of laws that impact upon this state. This method of formulating legislation and the wide language of clause 117 provides an exceptionally wide power for regulations to be made not via the normal method—not by them being passed by this House—and, therefore, this debate is hamstrung. I want to touch on the amendment that is made to the HQCC. I raised this issue with the members of the minister’s staff who briefed me on Monday morning. As I understand the bill, the amendment to the HQCC appears to say that the requirement to report what could be mandatory conduct or misconduct is exempt through the conciliation process if that conduct comes to light through the process. My concern—and the minister, being a former practitioner would also appreciate this—is that it is more often than not in the lead-up to the conciliation process that these allegations are raised. Mr Lucas: Do you mean at the HQCC preliminary or previous to it going to the HQCC? Mr McARDLE: No, during— Mr Lucas: Preliminary investigations. Mr McARDLE: Correct, and then correspondence by the complainant passes backwards and forwards et cetera. My concern is that, by the time the conciliation process arises, one would have thought that the major issues that could give rise to reportable conduct would have been in the jurisdiction of the HQCC. How do we deal with that? Therefore, the question is: is the amendment broad enough to cover what the HQCC is seeking? The other point is that the commissioner himself is a medical practitioner. In his role as a commissioner, he would also come across many issues that may well qualify as reportable conduct or misconduct. Being a medical practitioner, he may form an opinion that that issue may also be an issue that he has to report. Does the amendment go far enough to protect him if the HQCC is seeking the exemption across the whole body? It is a matter of clarification as to exactly what the amendments mean. As I said, the amendment to the HQCC deals with reportable misconduct. As the minister would be aware, on the last occasion on which reportable misconduct or conduct arose, the opposition opposed an amendment. We do not intend to move that amendment in this House today, but I reiterate that the amendment we proposed had three limbs. The first related to where two spouses were working 1264 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 13 Apr 2010 together and a first registrant formed an opinion that the second registrant, that is, the spouse of the first registrant, had conducted or performed in a manner that constituted reportable misconduct. We believe that that issue should be exempt given the marital relationship. The second one was where a medical practitioner was seeking the assistance of a medical practitioner, for example, if a practitioner had a drinking problem and was then seeking the help of another medical practitioner. That circumstance should be exempt as there was some concern, also by the AMAQ and others, that that may be an issue that should be addressed in another jurisdictional setting. The third one was the issue of the insurance industry which, of course, both the government and the opposition agreed to. We still hold those concerns in relation to the proposal for a requirement to report conduct that may well be reportable conduct or misconduct in some manner. Interestingly enough, the bill in particular deals with QCAT and states— The National Law provides for questions of professional misconduct or the fraudulent obtaining of registration by a registered health practitioner to be heard by a responsible tribunal. Questions of unsatisfactory professional conduct or (... misconduct) may be decided by a national board or a performance and professional standards panel or health panel. National boards are appointed by the Ministerial Council, and must consist of a balance of practitioner and community members. Panels may be established by national boards in response to notifications or other concerns about the health, performance or conduct of a registered health practitioner, and must consist of a balance of practitioner and community members. Jurisdiction to review certain disciplinary and other decisions of boards and panels is vested in each jurisdiction’s responsible tribunal. In this case, the ‘responsible tribunal’ is to be QCAT. The question I have for the minister relates to an issue that we spoke about in the briefing and it relates to the issue of a review and the issue of an appeal. As I understand the briefing yesterday, they are two different terms. I am just trying to follow clearly the determination of a review going to where and an appeal going to where and an appeal on a question of law going to where. The latter one I understand is the Court of Appeal and the relevant jurisdiction across each of the states and territories. The question I pose to the minister is this: as I understand the briefing, each of the states and territories has a determination upon the same legislation to interpret a particular clause. We know from our own experience that you can get six barristers and six judges in a room and get six different opinions. Is there a risk of each jurisdictional court, having not been bound by other jurisdictional courts, interpreting clauses differently if the appeal is to a state court and not to perhaps a central court which would have single jurisdiction— Mr Lucas: That’s a risk if you don’t have an integrated courts system. I don’t know what your experience was as a practitioner, but I can tell you I always preferred to go to the Supreme Court than the Federal Court. Mr McARDLE: Yes, absolutely. There is no question about that. What I do not want to see is different operations across the nation. As the minister could well imagine, that would be a lawyers’ delight. So the question is: do we need to get around that in some manner or am I simply looking at an issue that is not going to arise? Mr Lucas: It’s an interesting point on appeal points of law. Most of these are matters on facts. It is an interesting point. Mr McARDLE: When we put in place this new regime, as I said, it will produce the medical practitioners that we need across this nation to undertake the services that are required. I want to touch very quickly upon the Forster report. Two of the issues raised in this report are, firstly, culture and, secondly, risk management and clinical governance. At page 60 of the report Peter Forster talks about the health culture and what have been the influences. He makes this comment at 4.4 under the heading ‘Directions for change’— The culture Queensland Health should aspire to is one which creates an environment where: • services are oriented around the needs of patients, their families and the community • the community is well informed about the services provided including: • how long they will need to wait for services • how well the services meet best practice • what risk there is of adverse events occurring and • how to address concerns they have about the services. The report then goes on at some length to discuss other points as well. The major issue it raises is very important: in the training of medical practitioners and the impact they may have in relation to determining the course that their hospital adopts—not just in relation to the individual matter they are dealing with but in the long term—is the question of leadership. Without a shadow of a doubt culture is tied to the question of leadership. If there is a strong leadership there is a strong culture. If there is a strong culture there must therefore be a strong leadership. It is that combination that is so important in relation to developing not just the practice of medicine but also the environment in which these doctors are required to practise. 13 Apr 2010 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 1265

More importantly, at page 167 Peter Forster talks about the issue of risk management and clinical governance. He defines clinical governance as— The system through which health services are accountable for continuously improving the quality of services and safeguarding high standards of care, by creating an environment in which clinical excellence will flourish. He takes that from the British National Health Service, again at page 169, in footnote 79. He says that the guidelines in relation to clinical governance should include the following: openness about failures, emphasis on learning and support, obligation to act, accountability, just culture, appropriate prioritisation of action and, importantly, teamwork. He then lists that the key steps in all of these are the development of an equality and safety policy, development of a clinical governance framework, provision of supporting infrastructure, establishment of standards and establishment of performance monitoring. As I said, the LNP will be supporting this bill. We had some difficulty with bill A. That was then amended via bill B. I said to the health minister on that occasion and also to the director-general at a later date that bill B was a positive bill. Bill C is not a substantive bill. Bill C puts in place the nuts and bolts to a certain extent so that bills A and B and the scheme can be worked efficiently and effectively. However, I must stress that putting in place a mechanism that educates, trains and also allows doctors to be mobile across the nation without incurring additional expenses will not alone provide the health services of this nation. Peter Forster’s report, although it was in September 2005, enlivens many questions that still need to be dealt with in this state and indeed across other states and territories. At the end of the day there is no doubt that whether one is a member of the government, the opposition or an independent there is only one goal in mind, and that is to provide a safe and effective health system for all Queenslanders not just for now but for years to come. The health minister has made it quite clear, and I agree with him entirely, that there are significant challenges ahead in relation to an ageing population and chronic disease. Certainly, both the health minister and I in various speeches here and elsewhere have touched upon those important concerns. We will have our debates and battles in relation to what is more effective, we will also have debate about the issue of infrastructure, but I think I can say that irrespective of that debate we still have one goal in mind, and that is to provide a very strong and efficient health service to all Queenslanders. The debate in relation to the national takeover may well be one that is fought out during the election campaign. Whether the proposal of the Prime Minister, Premier Brumby or ours is adequate will be up to the people. At the end of the day, however, the goal is still the same: to provide safety and security to the people of Queensland. Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—LNP) (3.03 pm): This is the third piece in the current round of linking to a national registration accreditation scheme for the health professions on 1 July 2010. I say the current round of national legislation because currently the federal government, under the direction of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, is proposing yet another round of significant health changes. His proposals are for some a major chance for reform, for most they do not care less and for others a step back in time. I have not seen enough of the detail to make a totally informed opinion but my view so far is that his model remains stuck in an old-world model for me to actually shift my opinion. In other words, it is a hospital based model. The bill that we are debating today promises much to the public as a protective mechanism by ensuring only suitably trained and qualified persons are registered and by facilitating access to services provided by health practitioners in accordance with the public interest. This will go a long way to addressing the varied and significant concerns that have occurred due to the registration of, in many cases, totally underqualified doctors specifically to perform duties for which they were hopelessly underqualified for. Further, in many cases, their skills, language ability and suitability to practise in an Australian environment were completely underwhelming. In a previous state-by-state assessment of registration systems, there were too many gaps, too little scrutiny before and after and one too many who suffered the terrible consequences of these failures. Court cases have occurred that really should never have led to the issues that are being raised today. Our system has known of the problems and nothing was done. The system and medical staff have not often done enough. The system has often made the situation worse and patients have suffered. The common denominator in all these types of equations is those unsuspecting members of the public who cop the consequences of failure to adequately check the bona fides, medical qualifications and histories of medical professionals and other professionals in allied health seeking access to patients and payments by the Australian taxpayer. The objectives of the bill are also to address some of the problems that have occurred through other failings of existing models. These other objectives are to facilitate workforce mobility by reducing the administrative burden for health professionals and to facilitate the provision of high-quality education for health practitioners. To effectively enable these objectives, there will need to be similar legislation passed through all other state and territory parliaments. Whilst this has not occurred yet it is expected that all will agree and pass similar legislation as the COAG arrangements have agreed. 1266 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 13 Apr 2010

We in the LNP support the objectives of the bill. It is a good idea but it is a step into the unknown since the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009, which is the second bill to which it links, marks yet another step by the Commonwealth to assume control of an area that it has never held before. Incidentally, some might even remember that the Commonwealth has no legislative authority in that area. We should remember that we are entering a serious plank of our health system with a nebulous overarching group that has no track record in this area. Significantly, New South Wales has elected to retain a separate complaints handling investigation and review mechanism. To some this seems to be of little consequence. It is not. It was dealt with in part by the shadow minister with regard to the issue of the HQCC, but what it includes is the opposite side of the accreditation equation. It is logical to separate accreditation, and they did get that right, whereas possibly Queensland and the HQCC does not because there is the issue of Caesar judging Caesar. What it says is that, far from giving an each way bet, New South Wales does not entirely trust the federal government to get it right. Clearly, it is going further in saying that it probably will be a toothless tiger or will potentially do a classical Canberra based whitewash when faced with significant challenges to its system, as commonly occurs in the health area. I have previously raised the area where I suspect the Commonwealth template legislation may fail. I see no reason to change my mind regarding what I suspect will occur there. Therefore, we will have to go through three template bills that give us little more than what we already have except that our fees will be much higher, the complexity of the system far worse, there will be more red tape and, critically, no-one will really be in charge except for politicians—which is possibly why this bill is going through—and so no-one can be blamed. For the cynics amongst us—remember all politicians have plenty of armchair and commission- earning critics—this has more than a faint look and feel of a Yes, Minister episode. There is a particular scene where Sir Humphrey explains that if one has to have patients in a hospital—and members will remember his choice was not to have them, which is less than the ideal circumstances in the ideally managed and staffed hospital—make no-one responsible for looking after the hospital and then there can be no-one to blame when things go wrong as they often do when no-one is in charge or responsible. So a bill that holds the promise of offering greater certainty for public protection has, by design, the possibility of yielding nothing close to the promise—and possibly less than they already have— because the person whose role it is to be the final protector has given up that role. Our health minister currently has that role and he clearly stated that this morning when he said that he was both the arbiter and the final person for responsibility, as he should do under the circumstances. I am not so certain that the current federal health minister understands this as a possibly new and evolving role. I hear worrying statements about regional health networks absorbing much of these types of roles. According to the Australian Financial Review, the federal government has implemented initiatives—for example, home insulation and other energy efficiency measures and workplace reform— that have created mess and uncertainty. The same can be said about this issue as well. This is absolutely the opposite of what must be created in a health environment. Health is about patients, their families, other families, doctors, nurses, support staff and interested bystanders. At some time in our lives, health issues affect all of us. It is about mothers with their children—many with acute illness at some stage in their lives, some with chronic illness which some may suffer all their lives, sadly, many with disabilities and then later those with far too much time and then, tragically, excess of time at a time in our lives when we reflect on what has happened to the clock. Health is about morale, it is also about morals and it is always about what is possible. Sometimes it is said that politics is about what is possible, but it is not always concerned with reality as health is. Some say that none of politics is concerned with reality. In health, staff morale is at a low ebb because no-one seems to know just where the next dollar will come from and, basically, whether or not the system will change. Currently, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is telling the states that they have to sign on for incentives to reach targets or they will miss out. Queensland Health is facing its failure to pay staff their weekly wages because of a deal that was done with Public Works to standardise systems. They celebrated their success but, unfortunately, they did not get it right. These massive changes are driving down staff morale in Queensland Health and that permeates throughout society and other health systems. Patients feel it, although not because staff do not care or do not go that extra mile. However, patients can see when an employer does not recognise or value its own hardworking staff. Sure, the health minister said all the right things when he found out what had happened and he said that he was going to do something about it, but the problem with the pay system should never have occurred at all. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Farmer): Order! I remind the member of the provisions of this bill. 13 Apr 2010 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 1267

Dr DOUGLAS: Similarly, Prime Minister Rudd demonstrates that he knows nothing about health when he talks about targets and, what is worse, we see the immediate orgy of penitence and self- flagellation which raises the issue of confessional politics, where he apologises for everything. Certainly, he puts Peter Beattie into the amateur ranks. Throughout all our institutions and services, health staff want people to stop talking only about hospitals. It is not all about hospitals. Nor should people be sucked in by this mindless election-driven talk of the federal government and the near complete, evasive excuse mentality of our state government representatives. The staff know this. Basically, they want to work in an environment where the systems work well enough for them. They want to focus on the patients, at whom care should be directed. Irrespective of the current health minister’s claim, 12 years of aggressive health rationing has not delivered a major new public hospital. Although some are coming on line, we have not had one for 12 years. Nor have we seen any major new life-saving initiatives and we do not have a greater health outcome for our state residents. They have seen the waiting lists grow, they have seen the admission rates grow and they have seen their own access decline. The common factor is Labor governments. Commentator after commentator calls for more action and less talk, but all this is about motherhood statements— Mr Lucas: Read the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report and see what has changed over time in our health system. Don’t try that stuff. Dr DOUGLAS: No. The talk is all about the talk. It is about restoring the balance, building the states— Mr Lucas: All the statistics show across Australia, whether it is cancer, whether it is surgery—no matter what area—the improvements that we have had in this country, regardless of state, frankly, and you know it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Dr DOUGLAS: No-one believes that. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind the member of the provisions of this bill. Dr DOUGLAS: No-one believes the government. Health staff and patients do not believe it and, sadly, the promises of the federal COAG legislation probably will not win them over. I have said that health is about morale, but it is also about being truthful. That is after— Mr Lucas interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the minister to cease interjecting. Dr DOUGLAS: I have said that health is about morale, but it is also about being truthful—that is, making a correct diagnosis based on factual interpretations of the history and clinical signs. Truth is one of those things that you either believe in or you believe in in part. Galileo was right on the money when he said that all truths are easy to understand once they are discovered but the point is to discover them. With this in mind, this bill further proposes to create a new national pharmacy board and draw in chiropractors, dentists, nurses, midwives, optometrists, osteopaths, physiotherapists, podiatrists, psychologists and later, in 2012, ATSI health practitioners, Chinese medicine practitioners, medical radiation technologists and occupational therapists. Nine health practitioner registration acts will be replaced by a national law. Critically, the bill establishes the administrative mechanisms that will support registration boards in performing their functions. It allows for the transition to national registration boards. In Queensland’s case, it will prescribe QCAT’s role in procedural arrangements when hearing disciplinary matters under the national law. This facilitates issues of truth. In part, it addresses what truths we know of people and their qualifications, the truth about what may or may not have occurred as a result of their actions, mechanisms about judging the veracity of evidence presented and now, with the national system, a mechanism for sharing the knowledge in a universal way. It might prevent gaps in the system, allowing some to slip through the cracks while preventing others from escaping through them. It is the system that most support for all the right reasons and, importantly, very dearly want to work efficiently. I am a medical practitioner and I can think of many lesser reasons why this system will benefit all and sundry. For most it promises one registration, allowing one the ability to work anywhere throughout our great country of Australia. Possibly it is 110 years too late, but better late than never. The downside of the legislation is the rather dreadful situation where we will have established a national agency that will have the powers, privileges and immunities of the state and place control and power over health professionals in a political institution. The ministerial council is the entity. It is accountable effectively to no-one and has reserve powers to give directions to a national board as to policies to be applied, despite members of the ministerial council having no relevant expertise. Over and over, history demonstrates that governments misuse science and do so when safeguards are removed to prevent such tragedies occurring. I talked about truth earlier. Science is only a variation of truth, because as time goes along we realise how little we really know and how much more there is to find out. In other words, the truth changes. 1268 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 13 Apr 2010

My concern is that government might think it has both a rubber stamp for its scientific pursuits and, when it needs it, a mechanism to justify its actions so that it cannot be blamed for not trying hard enough. Medicine is not about being seen to do the right thing; it is about doing the right thing for the right reasons. For that reason, many believe that medicine is not just a science but also an art. One of the progresses of the modern world is that, in a universal way, we can make all sorts of people’s lives better. The minister correctly raised the fact that we have improved as time has gone along, but possibly the rate of improvement could have been accelerated. We have to try to do it for as many people as we can and try to include those people. We can do so much to help people via all sorts of professional approaches and this bill, via a national approach, attempts to draw all those groups under a national umbrella. The bill will fail unless a federal ministerial accountable person is appointed to assume the mantle over the ministerial council. We need to correct the anomaly that prevents the sanctioning of a federal responsibility and authority. Strangely, it would appear to be an oxymoron in the current health discussion. For a health professional, it makes all words regarding the need for fair reform in health care for Australians seem very hollow. This bill has a significant component that addresses the issue of making doctors, nurses and allied health workers more accountable in a national framework. Those professionals and patients have the right to demand the same standards as those who are currently seeking to mandate national change and change current health arrangements. This bill needs to have a fourth component, with the health minister stepping up to the plate and taking responsibility. It will require broad shoulders. Possibly the health minister has this in mind, because today he has made statements that seem to indicate that he realises how important this is. The chalice is only poisoned if it is seen to be a burden and not an opportunity, for where there is no accountability there is no responsibility. Mr WATT (Everton—ALP) (3.19 pm): This bill is the third and final legislative stage for the national registration and accreditation scheme for health professionals. The bill also provides for minor amendments concerning the operation of the Queensland Institute of Medical Research, and I will speak briefly about both aspects of the bill. Firstly, in relation to the national registration of health professionals, the main objective of this bill is to finalise the legislative processes to introduce the new national registration and accreditation scheme for health professionals. This process began with the Council of Australian Governments 2008 intergovernmental agreement, which provides for a single National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the Health Professions. COAG agreed to a national scheme for 10 health professions, commencing from 1 July 2010. Those 10 professions are chiropractors, dental practitioners, medical practitioners, nurses and midwives, optometrists, osteopaths, pharmacists, physiotherapists, podiatrists and psychologists. This parliament has already passed two other pieces of legislation to establish this scheme. So I will not reiterate my views regarding the registration scheme in general. I have spoken about that when we have debated previous legislation. Suffice to say, I am a very big supporter of us adopting a national scheme. I think it does make a lot of sense in a federation like Australia to have uniform standards across the nation for health professions. I raised in the debate on the last bill the issue that I have been contacted by a number of speech pathologists in my electorate who were requesting that they also be part of the national scheme. The Deputy Premier has previously mentioned that that is a work in progress. As I understand it, the Queensland— Mr Lucas: I would be extremely supportive of it. I argued for it at a national level and will continue to argue for it. Mr WATT: Indeed. I thank the Deputy Premier. He took the words right out of my mouth. The Deputy Premier has been consistently—I might as well sit down— Mr Lucas: Madam Deputy Speaker is a speech pathologist of course. Mr WATT: Indeed. Madam Deputy Speaker has very strong views on the matter. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Farmer): Thank you for those excellent comments. The member for Everton has the call. Mr WATT: We can all take it in turns to give the views of each other. The Deputy Premier has played a very strong role in national fora in putting forward the views of speech pathologists. As I understand it, the issue is that Queensland is currently the only state that does have a registration scheme for speech pathologists. Other states were not prepared at this stage to support the idea of a national scheme, but it is something that we will continue to fight for. They are in very good hands with the Deputy Premier, under the supervision of Madam Deputy Speaker. Last week I had the pleasure of representing the Deputy Premier at the awarding of research grants to nurses and midwives by the Queensland Nursing Council. The Queensland Nursing Council has been the regulatory body overseeing registration and accreditation of nurses and midwives in this state. It will fold as of 30 June this year and will be absorbed into a national body. Not surprisingly, there was some degree of uncertainty among the nurses and midwives whom I spoke to that night about the 13 Apr 2010 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 1269 new national registration scheme. But overall there was a very favourable view among the attendees. As I said, nurses whom I spoke to could see a lot of sense in having uniform national standards for their profession right across the nation. The main aspect of this bill though that I wish to discuss relates to the Queensland Institute of Medical Research. This bill also provides for minor amendments to the Queensland Institute of Medical Research Act 1945 to help the QIMR perform its statutory functions more effectively while an ongoing review of the QIMR Act is being completed. The QIMR is one of Queensland’s finest institutions. It was established by the Queensland government in 1945 originally to further the study of tropical diseases in North Queensland. But it has now become one of the largest medical research organisations in the Southern Hemisphere, with a global reputation for the quality of its research. The QIMR has research divisions in a number of areas, including cancer and cell biology, infectious diseases, immunology, and human genetics and population health. It also has an active program to patent and commercialise technologies it develops, including those developed in collaboration with academic or commercial partners. The QIMR currently engages over 700 scientists, students and support staff in its four research divisions, which include 44 separate laboratories. I personally find it staggering to think that there are over 700 people employed by this institution. I think it is yet another example of the fine achievements of Queensland bodies under this government’s Smart State strategy. We have obviously put a lot of resources and energy into developing expertise in science and other knowledge industries. To have a world-class institution like the QIMR employing so many people doing leading research is testimony to the foresight of political leaders in this state in recent years in trying to get this kind of industry up and running. The QIMR receives an annual grant from Queensland Health for operational funding. This grant was $6.1 million for 2009-10. The majority of its funding is derived from competitive grants and donations. As well as the QIMR itself, the QIMR Council and the QIMR Trust are established as statutory bodies under the QIMR Act. The QIMR Council has the governance role for the QIMR, while the QIMR Trust has the function of raising and investing funds for the QIMR’s research activities. Under the QIMR Act, the members of the QIMR Council and the QIMR Trust, and the institute’s director and deputy director, are appointed by the Governor in Council. A review of the QIMR Act is currently being undertaken by Queensland Health to examine how the act can better reflect contemporary health and medical research objectives. A key issue being considered in the review is what is the most appropriate governance structure for the QIMR. Medical science has become an international business worth billions of dollars, where research institutes compete for funding, commercial opportunities, and talented scientists and researchers. The QIMR therefore needs a governance structure that will best allow it to operate efficiently and maximise its capacity to be internationally competitive and take advantage of opportunities. The main options for a new governance structure for the QIMR that are being considered are a statutory body model and a model involving the creation of a government owned company limited by guarantee. The amendments to the QIMR Act contained in this bill have been identified by the QIMR as necessary to help it perform its statutory functions more effectively and efficiently. It is desirable for these amendments to be made now, rather than waiting for the review of the act to be completed. The amendments in the bill provide flexibility in the term of the appointment of the QIMR director and enable the function of approving agreements and arrangements entered into by the QIMR to be exercised by Queensland Health’s director-general rather than the Minister for Health. No discussion of QIMR is complete without mentioning the exceptional work of its long-time director, Professor Michael Good. Professor Good has been the director of QIMR since 2000 and has led the institute to become one of Australia’s largest and most successful medical research and education centres. During his time as QIMR director, Professor Good has been instrumental in securing funding for the construction of the new $180 million Smart State Medical Research Centre—again, partly funded by this state government. He has established QIMR’s Indigenous Health Research Program, the Australian Centre for Vaccine Development and a new Mental Health Research Division. The institute’s successful education program is testament to his commitment to inspiring the scientists of tomorrow. It has been my great pleasure in recent years both as a public servant and as a member of parliament to get to know Professor Good, and I can absolutely testify to both the quality of his research and his real drive as a leader of that institution. Unfortunately, Professor Good’s tenure as the director of the QIMR is coming to an end. He has been awarded a prestigious Australia Fellowship from the National Health and Medical Research Council. Professor Good is not just the director and manager of this institution but also a highly successful researcher in his own right, and that has been recognised by the awarding of this fellowship. The fellowship is worth $800,000 per year for five years. So it is a significant recognition of his achievement. Professor Good will use the fellowship to continue his life-saving work in combating malaria and streptococcus A—two of the world’s biggest killers. Professor Good will undertake his fellowship at Griffith University. So QIMR’s loss is Griffith University’s gain. He will step down as director 1270 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 13 Apr 2010 of QIMR and take up the fellowship midyear. His research at Griffith University will strengthen the longstanding partnership between QIMR and Griffith University. I congratulate Professor Good on his achievements and wish him well. Finally, since the opposition has used the bill as an opportunity to refer to the Commonwealth’s health reforms, I will very briefly touch on my views on the subject. I completely disagree with the views that have been put forward by two members of the opposition so far, and no doubt we will hear similar views expressed. This is an historic opportunity to end the blame game when it comes to running health in this country. For far too long we have had federal governments not prepared to step up to the mark. We all understand the decrease in funding of health that occurred under the Howard government. I, for one— Opposition members interjected. Mr WATT: Decrease in relative terms. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member of the provisions of the bill. Mr WATT: I do remember that, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is why I will not speak anywhere near as long on this aspects as other members. Suffice to say, this is a long overdue point in time when a federal government will finally step up to the mark and invest in health to the degree necessary. Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (3.29 pm): I rise today to make a contribution to the Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) Amendment Bill 2010. The bill is designed to support the smooth commencement of the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the Health Professions, the national scheme, on 1 July 2010. The bill is the third and final piece of legislation establishing the national scheme. The LNP supported the establishment of this national scheme in parliament last year. The bill essentially makes administrative and consequential amendments to legislation across government required to accommodate and reflect the commencement of the national scheme. The bill is not, in itself, contentious and is being supported by the Liberal National Party. As mentioned in my previous speech on the national legislation, I note that the standards for nursing are still yet to be developed, and it will be with interest that I will be monitoring the agencies involved in providing input to those standards. Particular input should always be sought from the Queensland Nursing Council, the Royal College of Nursing, Australia and the Council of Deans of Nursing and Midwifery for Australia and New Zealand. I would again hope in their considerations that those responsible for the standards of nursing practice also take into account the other subspecialities which have not been recognised and which deserve recognition, particularly stomal therapists, and wound management and breast cancer support nurses. It is important and interesting to note that nurses, as part of their registration process, will require indemnity insurance. This has previously been provided by either the unions or the College of Nursing. This will enable nurses to decide if they wish to join a union for purposes other than indemnity insurance, as this will be part and parcel of their registration. The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Council, which has similar concerns regarding standards, states— 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 around the independence of the Accreditation processes outlined in the draft legislation, particularly the powers of the Australian Health Workforce Ministerial Council with regard to accreditation standards of the professions and any consequent negative impact of this on the professions standards. The ANMC is committed to taking the time necessary to ensure that the scheme developed is implemented carefully, thoughtfully and transparently. As the only current registered nurse on either side of the House, I take particular note of any legislation that will affect nursing. With the average age of nurses currently in their fifties, it remains a very valid concern of mine that this reflects the end of an era of nurses such as me, who trained in a hospital based setting. I remain concerned that, regardless of the introduction of legislation on a national basis to streamline efficiencies such as a single national registration for nurses, these nursing numbers continue to decline. It is a sad state of affairs that, unfortunately, in even the profession of nursing—which in the past was always a trusted profession and a profession where one could aspire to the vocation of nursing— nurses continue to leave the public hospital sector and that the bullying and intimidation remains within Queensland Health. The recent debacle over the nonpayment of our front-line nurses is a further example of nurses being taken for granted. It took nurses a lot of courage to contact both the opposition and the media in order to highlight the problems with payroll. I was contacted many times by the media to find a nurse who would speak on the record on this issue, but unfortunately nurses will not speak out as they continue to be afraid of retribution from their employers. Again, it is a sad state of affairs when nurses are not reporting incidents of abuse in the workplace, not only from patients but also from visitors and other staff, because they are too scared to whistleblow in case they lose their jobs. 13 Apr 2010 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 1271

I will continue to speak out on behalf of my fellow nurses and suggest that the minister and his advisers start listening to the nursing staff at the coalface, instead of those in administrative roles who more often than not are so far removed from the clinical scene that their input is rendered irrelevant. I commend the bill to the House. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—LNP) (3.32 pm): The Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) Amendment Bill 2010 is legislation that is both timely and very relevant to the people of Burnett. There is no place in the whole of Queensland which has experienced the harm caused by the dysfunction and corruption of the Queensland public health system under Labor more than the Burnett-Bundaberg region. This legislation has been acknowledged a number of times publicly as a response to significant health events and crises which have happened to my constituents. Not only is this legislation a response to the sacrifices, hardship and heartache of the people of the Burnett and Bundaberg; the fact that this government was forced to double the public Health budget in five years is also proof that some good came out of the sacrifices, hardship and heartache of the people of the Burnett and Bundaberg who were forced to experience dreadful and tragic circumstances. This legislation is once again a product of those experiences. I take the time to quickly remind both sides of this place, the minister and the shadow minister, that the people of the Burnett and Bundaberg have not received their fair share of the doubling of that Health budget. We look forward to a more equitable share of future Health budgets. I am puzzled by those opposite when I comment on matters relating to the Bundaberg Base Hospital, which this legislation fixed greatly with the registration of many doctors, overseas doctors included. The reality is that every person in the Burnett relies for their public health care on the Bundaberg Base Hospital and its dedicated employees—the nurses, doctors, wardspeople, cleaners and office workers—to provide public health care. Unfortunately, the health system of Queensland is dysfunctional, and this legislation before the parliament is trying to lessen the dysfunctionality of the system that we have in Queensland. It is dysfunctional because of the criminal mismanagement of this government, as we have seen a parade of incompetent ministers. One health minister in the past was a convicted criminal, and we have a colleague of that convicted criminal who stood in this chamber and brazenly attested to this now convicted criminal’s good character. So is it any wonder that Queensland Health is unable to perform basic functions like properly paying employees when the people of the— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Pitt): Order! Member for Burnett, return to the provisions of the bill. This is a bill for a particular purpose. Mr MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I return to the Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) Amendment Bill 2010. This is the third and final piece of legislation creating a national scheme for the registration and accreditation of health practitioners beginning on 1 July 2010. One of the principal objectives of the national scheme for the regulation of the registration and accreditation of health practitioners and students is protecting the public by ensuring that only suitably trained and qualified persons are registered. Given the mobility of the health workforce and the theory behind national standards for treating patients, it makes sense to have a national scheme for the regulation and accreditation of health practitioners and students. However, there is an important qualification and a need for caution before we wholeheartedly embrace this national scheme, and I will be very interested to hear the minister’s response on this issue. It has been highlighted by the Executive Director of the Consumers Health Forum, Carol Bennett, and written about in a recent media article by Suellen Hinde, who says that investigation into complaints about the conduct and the performance of doctors is likely to be shrouded in secrecy when state medical boards are amalgamated into one body under sweeping national reforms on 1 July. The Consumers Health Forum, the nation’s peak body to protect the interests of patients, is furious that the role of public interest assessor has been removed from the national scheme. CHF executive director, Carol Bennett, said that the assessor would have been an independent person for people to directly complain to about medical practices without any conflicts of interest. One of the problems now is that the board actually investigates its own complaints, with huge conflicts of interest. I am sure that you will agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this is completely relevant to this legislation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: My opinion is not relevant in this case, member for Burnett. Mr MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ms Bennett said further that the public interest assessor was always going to be there until the very last minute. The new national registration and accreditation scheme covering 10 health professions including doctors and nurses will see all state medical boards amalgamated into one Medical Board of Australia. The amalgamation process has had little public attention. Ms Bennett said that the scheme was proposed because of issues which were mentioned earlier at Bundaberg and another serious case in Bega. This is about the risk to the public, and I will be addressing the risk to the public later in my speech. Ms Bennett said that they want independent funding. They want the assessor to be able to consult with the community rather than the boards which have a vested interest and they want them to investigate all complaints, not to follow through with their own internal processes. I think the removal of the assessor function makes the scheme far less rigorous than it would have been. 1272 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 13 Apr 2010

The President of the Medical Board of Queensland, Dr Erica Mary Cohn, said that there was still a lot to be thrashed out and she did not see the need for a more open approach to investigations and hearings. At the moment, all the Medical Board investigations and hearings into doctors’ professional standards and conduct are confidential until they are referred to the court system. Another key area that I wish to address later in my speech is the confidentiality of allegations made against doctors. There are currently 100 confidential investigations into doctors being conducted by the Medical Board in Queensland. In Queensland, the medical registrar does not disclose details of doctors who are being monitored for health reasons such as drug abuse. I will also speak about suspected drug abuse later in my speech. The Medical Board Australia chair, Dr Joanna Flynn, declined to be interviewed on that subject. Ordinary Queenslanders find it very difficult to access information about the doctor who is treating them. It is easier to find out the professional qualifications and competency of nurses, accountants, teachers, lawyers, politicians, pilots, and train, bus and cab drivers than it is to find out the professional qualifications and competency of doctors. There is, I believe, an unhealthy professional code of secrecy. It is a case of ‘don’t dob on your mates’. I personally experienced the vitriol of the AMA and those opposite when I named a doctor in this place under parliamentary privilege. While it is contentious in some quarters, I acknowledge and applaud the mandatory reporting of misconduct in a national registration scheme. We must take positive steps to undermine this dangerous code of secrecy that has developed within the professional ranks of doctors. In 2005 the AMA said that I had sunk lower than a bathysphere when I named in this place a doctor who was the subject of serious allegations. I hope that the AMA and other medical organisations have a more considered response after my question on notice today in which I named another doctor because of a number of serious allegations made against him and a comprehensive failure on the part of this government to protect patients, newly born babies and mothers at the Bundaberg Base Hospital. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Pitt): Order! Member for Burnett, I ask that you return directly to the provisions of the bill. Mr MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will return to the provisions of the bill. I direct your attention to clauses 59 and 60 of the bill relating to the amendment of the Health Services Act 1991 where it talks about notifiable conduct. That is the area that I wish to address my comments to. The minister said in his second reading speech that the bill contains other measures intended to promote consistency between the national laws and the remaining Queensland registration acts. These measures will allow Queensland boards to disclose confidential information to a relevant public entity if they reasonably believe that a registrant poses a risk to public health or patient safety. Today I would like to talk about a practical example of a Medical Board registrant who may pose a risk to public health or patient safety and discuss how that person may fit into this legislation regarding a new national medical board and the need to disclose confidential information about this doctor in order to guarantee the safety of patients at the Bundaberg Base Hospital. I believe that there have been a number of formal complaints about Dr Wijeratne of a serious nature involving allegations of incompetence and grossly unprofessional behaviour. Those official complaints have been made to the management of Queensland Health. On the Queensland Medical Board’s website there is no disciplinary record of those official complaints. I find this unusual. Today I asked the minister to disclose the number of formal complaints that have occurred over the last 10 years, I believe. I table a set of documents highlighting those complaints along with a sound file of an interview. Tabled paper: Bundle of documents in relation to allegations about the treatment of patients at the Bundaberg Base Hospital [2049]. Tabled paper: Portable USB memory stick [2050]. One of the most concerning allegations I brought before this place during the last sitting was of a Burnett mother who was wrongly diagnosed as having a miscarriage and wrongly given abortion medication without Dr Wijeratne following proper early pregnancy protocol. The mistake was only discovered after the unborn baby survived exposure to an abortion drug. After rereading ministerial correspondence from 2009 on behalf of Ms Paige Climas and speaking to her, a second allegation of incompetence and unprofessional behaviour regarding Dr Wijeratne has also been brought to my attention. Ms Climas’s unborn baby, Louan, died at 33 weeks because of a loss of her amniotic fluid. One of the troubling aspects of the death of Louan Climas was that his mother had undertaken a number of independent pregnancy tests showing that her amniotic fluid was becoming dangerously low. Ms Climas alleges that she brought this fact to the attention of her treating doctor, Dr Wijeratne, both verbally and by showing him ultrasound scans at the 28-week mark. He dismissed the information out of hand and said, ‘The base hospital does not need these scans. You are not required to bring them to my appointments anymore.’ After Ms Climas’s repeated protests, Dr Wijeratne relented and studied the scans. Even though an independent medical professional at the private hospital, Trevor, had stated— 13 Apr 2010 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 1273

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Burnett, you have referenced clause 59, I believe. I think you need to address how this bill will affect the circumstances you are talking about, not provide examples of past misconduct. I ask you to return to the provisions contained in the bill and address those directly. Mr MESSENGER: I return to the provisions of the Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) Amendment Bill 2010 at subclause 60(a) on the top of page 72, where it says ‘practised practitioner’s profession while intoxicated by alcohol or drugs’. There are also allegations that this doctor employed by the Bundaberg Base Hospital was charged and convicted of drink driving. I once again contend that this has direct relevance to this legislation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Burnett, I have provided you some latitude. I am allowing you to do so. I am just asking you to keep in mind the provisions contained within the bill. Mr MESSENGER: Thank you for your direction, Mr Deputy Speaker. The health minister and the Premier have known about this matter for 22 days now. An average of four babies a day have been born in that time. The health of up to 88 babies and women has been placed at risk because of a failure by this government to properly act. The Deputy Premier and the Premier have during these 22 days refused to guarantee Dr Wijeratne’s qualifications and competency and refused to suspend this doctor from work pending the results of an independent investigation. I call on this government to stand him aside until the results of a properly resourced and independent investigation are known. I also ask them to release the number of official complaints already made against this doctor. In closing, people who need medical treatment in our public hospitals, in an accident and emergency ward or in a ward proper, are relying on two organisations to have done their jobs properly to make sure that the doctor who is treating them is registered, credentialled, privileged, competent and supervised. Those two bodies are the Queensland Medical Board and Queensland Health, and by extension the Minister for Health. They rely on those people and those organisations to have done their jobs properly. History has shown us that both groups of people have failed to do their jobs and the results of that failure have been catastrophic, appalling and tragic. Both groups of people have never been held to account for their past criminal failures, even though there have been recommendations made in a royal commission by a retired judge for people to be charged and held to account. I believe that, by skilful manipulation of the media and the press, they have been able to hide their guilt and culpability and escape justice. They have been allowed to bury their criminal wrongdoings, just as the families of victims have had to buried their loved ones in the worst of cases. I pray that this legislation works and better protects Queenslanders and their families from future health disasters. As one of the overriding principles in the legislation says, it is to protect the public by ensuring that only suitably trained and qualified persons are registered. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (3.49 pm): The Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) Amendment Bill 2010 is the third and final legislative stage for the national registration and accreditation scheme. The bill predominantly makes consequential amendments to health and other portfolio legislation to facilitate implementation of the national scheme. As the Pharmacists Board of Queensland will be abolished and its registration functions conferred on the Pharmacy Board of Australia under the national scheme, the bill amends the Pharmacists Registration Act 2001 to give responsibility for monitoring and enforcing the pharmacy business ownership restrictions in the act to Queensland Health on an interim basis instead of the Pharmacists Board of Queensland. In addition to dealing with the registration of pharmacists, the act currently limits ownership of pharmacy businesses to registered pharmacists, corporations consisting of pharmacists or a combination of pharmacists and their relatives, with pharmacists as majority shareholders, friendly societies and the Mater Misericordiae Health Services. The act also restricts the number of pharmacy businesses in which a person may have a beneficial interest at any given time. The main policy rationale for these restrictions is that limiting the controlling interests in the ownership of pharmacy businesses to pharmacists promotes the safe and competent provision of pharmacy services and helps maintain public confidence in those services. Also, limiting the number of pharmacy businesses that may be owned by a person helps protect the public from market dominance or inappropriate market conduct. Pharmacists registered under the act will transition to the national scheme on its commencement on 1 July 2010. The COAG intergovernmental agreement under which the national scheme is established specifies that the scheme does not cover the licensing of pharmacy premises or pharmacy business ownership restrictions, leaving these matters to individual states and territories. Queensland, unlike most other Australian jurisdictions, does not currently require pharmacy premises to be licensed. Consistent with the COAG intergovernmental agreement, the provisions of the act imposing restrictions on pharmacy business ownership will continue in force after the national scheme commences on 1 July 2010. The rationale for those restrictions is unaffected by the commencement of the national scheme. 1274 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 13 Apr 2010

Part 9 of the bill repeals, with effect from 1 July 2010, the provisions of the act that deal with the establishment and functions of the Pharmacists Board of Queensland, the registration of pharmacists and all other matters unrelated to the pharmacy business ownership restrictions. Part 9 also renames the act the Pharmacy Business Regulation Act 2001 and gives responsibility for monitoring and enforcing the pharmacy business ownership restrictions in the act to Queensland Health instead of the board. However, the amendments in part 9 do not change the current restrictions on who may own a pharmacy business or the number of pharmacy businesses that may be owned by a person at any one time. Other necessary amendments are included in part 9 to enable Queensland Health to effectively monitor and enforce the pharmacy ownership restrictions. This includes amendments that impose an obligation on owners of pharmacy businesses to notify Queensland Health’s chief executive officer when there is a change of ownership of the business or when there is a change of particulars of ownership. The administration of the pharmacy business ownership restrictions by Queensland Health is an interim arrangement as Queensland Health will be conducting a comprehensive review after 1 July 2010 to determine who should administer the restrictions in the long term. The review will involve detailed analysis as well as extensive consultation in relation to all feasible options, including whether a separate statutory pharmacy authority should be set up to perform the role of administering the restrictions. Most other Australian jurisdictions are proposing to establish a new statutory entity to administer pharmacy ownership restrictions and their requirements for licensing of pharmacy premises. The review by Queensland Health will also examine whether licensing of pharmacy premises should be introduced into Queensland. The national registration and accreditation scheme relates to 10 health professions being included in the scheme which include chiropractors, dental practitioners, medical practitioners, nurses and midwives, optometrists, osteopaths, pharmacists, physiotherapists, podiatrists and psychologists. However, people in my electorate of Bundamba have questioned the qualifications of those who set themselves up as counsellors. For example, I have been advised by constituents that no qualifications are required for anyone to set themselves up as a counsellor. There is nothing to stop people with mental illnesses or past mental illnesses—for example, bipolar—to set themselves up as counsellors. I ask the minister to look at this particular issue. I also want to point out to the parliament that the member for Burnett is very passionate about issues in relation to Bundaberg Hospital, just as I am very passionate about issues in relation to Ipswich Hospital. The member for Burnett is also well aware that, whilst I was parliamentary secretary during some of those years he is talking about, I was in Bundaberg with him at many meetings with patients, at many meetings with doctors and at many meetings with nurses on the ground up there on behalf of the Labor government to support those people. Member for Burnett, you would agree that I was up there trying to assist the people of your region of Bundaberg. I was up there not only in my role as parliamentary secretary to the minister for health but also in my role as a member of this parliament—as a caring member of this parliament—to help him as much as possible. You were not there on your own— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Pitt): Order! The member for Bundamba will address her comments through the chair. Mrs MILLER: The member for Burnett was not up there on his own. I was with him and I was there on behalf of our government. I was there walking every step of the way with him helping his constituents and every other constituent in the Bundaberg and Burnett region. Mr Messenger interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Burnett! Member for Bundamba, I ask you to return to the provisions of the bill. This is a bill for particular purposes. Mr Messenger interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Burnett, order! Mrs MILLER: What I am trying to point out, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that we were there. We were there as a Labor government looking after the people. In conclusion, in relation to Ipswich Hospital I want to place on the record that I admire the work of our doctors and nurses and our allied professionals at Ipswich Hospital. They do a great job there, as others do in other hospitals around the state. Mrs SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (3.56 pm): Health is front and centre of policy nationally at the moment, and the Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) Amendment Bill 2010 is another vital part of ensuring that health professionals will be registered and accredited nationally, taking away unnecessary duplication and making it easier for professionals to transfer between states knowing that their accreditation is now recognised Australia-wide. Under the Council of Australian Governments agreement, 10 professions will have their national scheme commence from 1 July 2010, those being chiropractors, dental practitioners, medical practitioners, nurses and midwives, optometrists, osteopaths, pharmacists, physiotherapists, podiatrists and psychologists. Several additional professions will be added on 1 July 2010, those being ATSI health practitioners, Chinese 13 Apr 2010 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 1275 medicine practitioners, medical radiation technologists and occupational therapists. I note that speech therapists are not mentioned on this list. Considering their importance, particularly in the rehabilitation of stroke victims, maybe the minister might address this issue. Since the time the Howard government restricted provider numbers for medical graduates although our population was in a steady growth phase, we were always going to arrive at a time when graduates from medical schools would be in such short supply that our state health department would seek medical practitioners from overseas. While most doctors are well trained and have served us well, we in this House all know of the problems which have arisen. This has also caused additional problems with separate state jurisdictions, and so this legislation is extremely important. My parents have been blessed with good health—neither requiring medication—but my father aged 97 and my mother aged 91 have in recent times required short stays in hospital. As I speak, my mother is in Southport Hospital undergoing tests and her sister has also been admitted for what we hope will be a minor operation. I wish to commend our entire medical service, including our paramedics, emergency departments, all the staff in our public hospitals and, in my family’s case in particular, Robina and Southport hospitals. We have experienced prompt, first-class service. Paramedics have been at my parents’ side in an instant and emergency wards have taken them in and responded to their needs very thoroughly. Doctors have explained clearly to family members any possible medical condition and community health nurses have explained the assistance that is available in the home where they still live independently. Queensland Health is a huge department, treating many thousands of patients per day right throughout the state. Whenever there is criticism of the hospital at Logan, locals fly to its defence and I receive phone calls and emails telling me of the hospital’s care for a family member or for themselves. It grieves me that our media is so quick to run stories on individual cases in such a negative way to give the impression that our health service is in decline. That is simply not the case. But with such a complex organisation and often with emergency situations, there will at times be negative events. However, we should all salute our workforce in Queensland Health. With any bill transferring jurisdiction to the Commonwealth, there is a need for the states to ensure that all our legislation supports the national law. In this case, it is necessary for each state to introduce legislation to ensure a smooth transition by way of each state’s bill C, which, in the case of Queensland, will repeal the required state laws and amend others. It also needs to take into consideration the requirements for QCAT when hearing disciplinary matters. Finally, there was also the necessity to make amendments to the Queensland Institute of Medical Research Act. Although the drafting of this legislation is complex and requires a great deal of careful attention to detail, I have no doubt that it will be one more measure to enhance the way in which our medical services are delivered nationally. I thank the minister and those who have laboured long to bring this bill before the House. Mr DICKSON (Buderim—LNP) (4.01 pm): I rise to speak in respect of the possible handover of Queensland’s health system to the federal government. With reference to this amendment bill, I support certain components of it, including the national accreditation of health practitioners. In November 2008, the Health Practitioner Regulation (Administrative Arrangements) National Law Bill 2008—bill A—was passed by the Queensland parliament to establish the administrative arrangements for the national scheme. Queensland hosted the Health Practitioners Regulation National Law Bill 2009. That bill was passed in November 2009. After the successful passage of this third and final piece of legislation to establish the national scheme in Queensland, similar legislation will then require passage through all of the state and territory parliaments. The intergovernmental agreement stated that it was agreed to establish the scheme by 1 July 2010 and that Queensland will be the host state. Unfortunately, at this stage the scheme may not be truly a national scheme by 1 July 2010 as the indications are that South Australia and Tasmania are unlikely to pass the required legislation. I do not support the handover of Queensland’s health system to the federal government, at the same time relinquishing 30 per cent of Queensland’s GST funding from the Commonwealth. I believe that the people of Queensland want a health system that is run at a state and local level. I do not believe that, just because the health system in Queensland is currently being run by an incompetent Labor government, the people of Queensland want a health system—or any other Queensland system for that matter—handed over to bureaucrats thousands of kilometres away in Canberra. I refer to the current debacle surrounding the implementation of the supposedly new, state-of-the- art health payroll and rostering system. Nurses are arguing— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Pitt): Order! Member for Buderim, can you point me to the area in the bill that you are addressing, please? Mr DICKSON: Nurses are arguably the most important people within our health system. Yet the Queensland Labor government cannot even organise— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Buderim, I just asked if you could direct me to the clause that you are addressing or which part of the bill you are addressing. This is a bill for particular purposes. 1276 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 13 Apr 2010

Mr DICKSON: I would like to talk about protecting the public to ensure that all doctors are trained to certain standards. I am sure that all members of the House want to make sure that doctors throughout the state of Queensland are trained to a certain standard so that we do not have issues arising in Queensland such as have arisen in the past. The people of Queensland want the health system in Queensland to be run by Queenslanders, not to mention not giving up 30 per cent of the current GST funding from the federal government. I ask members to imagine the Premier and the Treasurer trying to balance the books with 30 per cent less money. They might have to put the rest of the state up for sale. The Premier has been quoted as saying that she does not expect the federal government— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Buderim, I ask that you return to the purpose of the bill. Mr DICKSON: I can speak to many components of the bill, which is about protecting the public and ensuring that trained, qualified people are registered. As I said a moment ago, we have to make sure that these people are trained adequately and that they can look after the people of Queensland adequately. Mistakes have been made in the past and I hope that we do not make those mistakes again. The Premier has stated that she is genuinely concerned that the formula for activity based funding will not disadvantage particularly rural or remote hospitals and that if she can be satisfied of that by the Prime Minister, then she will be very much interested in signing up to it. Does the state government want to give up our sovereignty altogether? If that is the government’s intention, there may be a time in the future when we will not be able to govern this state. For months, the state governments have been asking to see the entire health proposal from the federal government, which was provided only yesterday. There is even criticism of the new federal government’s proposed model for health reform from Labor’s own state Premiers. The Premier of Victoria, John Brumby, has grave reservations about the federal proposal. It seems that his government is able to run its own health system. So why can’t Queensland? Ahead of the COAG health summit next Monday, the Victorian Premier’s alternative report is critical of Mr Rudd’s current plan, stating that any state benefits of the federal government’s plan are overstated. The report states further— The commonwealth’s funding proposals are a drop in the ocean. There would be no relief on the financial pressures facing hospitals over the next decade. The benefits to the states have been overstated due to the use of incorrect data and assumptions that do not reflect current funding arrangements. Mr Brumby and Mr Rudd met at the end of March, with Mr Brumby emerging from that meeting saying that there are still many issues to be worked through. A major sticking point for the Victorian state government remains the lack of cash in the short term, with the Commonwealth plan delivering nothing to Victorian patients for the next four years. It is clear that the federal government is contemptuous in respect of negotiating its proposal with the states. The Prime Minister’s appalling treatment of the Premier of New South Wales, Kristina Keneally, on national TV some weeks ago showed that clearly. He ignored her discussion on health and instead chose to look at the TV cameras. Yesterday, the Brisbane media reported Premier Anna Bligh as stating— I’m very pleased the Prime Minister has identified emergency departments as a priority. The Australian Medical Association of Queensland says that the shortage of hospital beds is the biggest challenge to cutting emergency department waiting times. The President of the AMAQ, Dr Mason Stevenson, has welcomed the extra funding, but says that it will not be enough to provide the extra beds that are needed. Dr Stevenson stated further— AMA Queensland have worked out very recently that we need at least 450 additional beds right now in order to get our hospital occupancy rates down to 85 per cent ... Only then will we truly be able to solve our emergency department woes. Dr Stevenson stated further that part of the funding depends on whether hospitals meet waiting time targets. It is clear from the reservations expressed by the Labor Premiers and the Australian Medical Association of Queensland that the federal government’s takeover of health will not provide adequate funding to ensure that the system looks after Queenslanders in times of medical need. Clearly, Queensland is in desperate need of a state government that is capable of providing to its people a range of services, including health services. These services should be provided without giving up Queenslanders’ rights to the federal government, having to keep selling off bits of the farm, or bashing us over the head every five minutes with new fees and charges. Where did all the money go? For years in Queensland it has rained gold bars and four-carat diamonds courtesy of stamp duty receipts from the real estate boom and royalties from the mining boom. Again, I ask the Premier: where has all the money gone? Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—LNP) (4.09 pm): I rise to join the debate on the Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) Amendment Bill 2010, which was introduced into the Queensland parliament by the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health on 25 March 2010. We indicate 13 Apr 2010 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 1277 from the start that the LNP will be supporting this piece of legislation. As I have reported in debate on other health legislation that involves health practitioners and in particular GPs, I once again state that I am a former registered nurse and am married to a medical practitioner. Together we own a medical practice in Coolangatta. This bill is the third and purportedly last piece of legislation—I repeat the word ‘purportedly’ here because there may well be more—towards the creation of a national scheme that would see all Australian health practitioners who fit into a range of professions—some 14 professions—fall under the same system. This legislation is due to commence on 1 July 2010 and is the result of an intergovernmental agreement signed by the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, on 26 March 2008. Ten professions will be affected as of 1 July and others will shift across in 2012. I understand that there are no issues with those moving across at that time. Just why the minister needs to bring this piece of legislation forward from government business order of the day No. 10, at the bottom of the Notice Paper, to No. 1 in less than 24 hours is beyond me. This legislation could easily have been debated in May or June, allowing legislation that purports to better protect Queensland’s children from paedophiles to be debated. The Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill has languished on the Notice Paper since 1 September 2009. Perhaps the minister has brought this bill forward just because he can. In relation to the previous health legislation, the LNP opposed the first piece and gave guarded support to the second piece. The Health Practitioner Regulation (Administrative Arrangements) National Law Bill was debated in November 2008 under the proclamation from the minister that Queensland was hosting this the first step in a national scheme. Once again, this legislation was hurried through the parliament so the minister could claim he was the first to implement it. The LNP opposed this legislation. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee in Alert Digest No. 12 of 2008 identified concerns that elements of intergovernmental legislative schemes might undermine the institution of parliament. The committee also warned of a perception of a reduced need for legislative scrutiny of an intergovernmental agreement proposed for ratification. The AMA were worried about patients being put at risk by the removal of parliamentary and medical scrutiny from the mix. They said that the bill allowed decisions to be made in the name of expediency rather than sound medical judgement. It is still the opinion of many key stakeholders that accreditation of education and international standards occur without interference. Of key concern in the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Bill and the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Bill debated in October 2009 were amendments relating to mandatory reporting and privacy and information-sharing arrangements where doctors were going to have to break any manner of confidentiality to report misconduct by fellow doctors. I placed a number of arguments with regard to this in previous legislation debate. This parliament is meant to be a house of debate—robust debate—where members on both sides can put forward varying views on different subjects. At lunchtime today the Treasurer espoused this very principle when he launched the innovative Left Right Think-Tank in the Premier’s Hall. I hope he was being genuine, as he sounded so. It really is a pity that members cannot represent the view of others in this place without a minister attacking them for merely expressing the view of other stakeholders, for bothering to give these views the oxygen that they so deserve—views that are held by a percentage of our citizens. The minister’s own inadequacy in the Health portfolio saw him resort to personal criticisms. Perhaps it is because he does not have the capacity to understand or digest the portfolio that he is supposed to be leading. To twist comments I made in relation to the role nurses play in the provision of health care is underhand behaviour and not fitting of a minister of the Crown. Let us look at what I did say in that debate of health legislation in 2009. I said— 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. For that I had the minister in his reply twist my comments. We on this side of the House consider it paramount to listen to opinions and experiences of those who are the key stakeholders—respected professionals, front-line workers and, yes, the patients at the receiving end of these facilities. Whilst the contents of the end piece of this legislation that is before us today do not present any serious concerns for the LNP, it is what went before them in 2008 and 2009 that set off the alarm bells amongst key stakeholders around the nation. The previous legislation was going to force all of the abovementioned health professionals who are mentioned in this bill to fit into a national accreditation and registration process. A significant number were not happy. Not everyone was consulted and not everyone was convinced it was good legislation. There are some well-founded concerns as well as to how this new national scheme will work. Health bodies have been writing to their members telling them of the changes that will be coming in on 1 July. Many of those providers involved with these changes have expressed doubts as to the efficacy of the new scheme. Given the hopeless efforts of the Queensland government to implement computer 1278 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 13 Apr 2010 systems here in Queensland, one can only hope that the federal government will be able to do a better job in coordinating this national list and getting the details right. Despite several years of promises and many millions of dollars, what we saw in recent weeks, with health workers from Queensland Health being deprived of their hard earned wages, was nothing short of disgraceful. I do hope there will be some guarantees that this behaviour will not be extended at a federal level. The much touted SAP computer system that pays our health workers, developed and implemented by IBM, has created a monster for countless thousands of Queensland Health staff who certainly did not have Easter eggs for Easter, some of them not even having enough to pay their rent or purchase necessities. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms O’Neill): Order! Could you return to the purpose of the bill, please. Mrs STUCKEY: The current AMA president, Mr Andrew Pesce, comments that the healthcare system should not be determined by costs alone, that the quality of patient care should be uppermost. In many of these debates, unfortunately, it is the quality of patient care that is last on the list and which suffers. The reform of our health system as we see before us today is well overdue. If one looks around Australia at the state of our healthcare and public health system, it is little wonder that the federal government has decided to become involved in this legislation. The three pieces of legislation, which will see a streamlining of health care, will no doubt have some benefits but there is also the potential for failure, as I have mentioned in earlier legislation. There really cannot be one piece of legislation without the other two, which is why it is so important that members address the legislation that came before us before today. However, the blame game that we are seeing being played out between the Commonwealth and the states, the majority of which are still Labor, has very little to do with the quality of our health and our education systems and everything to do with control and political advantage. Perhaps this national approach to health that we are seeing here today is in truth Labor’s long-term strategy of eliminating the states. Whitlam took over universities on the specious grounds that the Commonwealth was better placed to finance them and indeed bypassed the states to fund local government projects. Mr Lucas interjected. Mrs STUCKEY: Now Gillard is taking over the direction of primary and secondary education in both operational terms and indirect capital funding while Rudd is busily taking over the state’s authorities in controlling health. Mr Lucas interjected. Mrs STUCKEY: It is very difficult to argue anything but the fact that the Prime Minister is in fact controlling health, because this legislation is about just that. Ms Grace interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Currumbin has the floor. Mrs STUCKEY: Thank you very much. I have a very sound argument here because what else is COAG unless it is an intergovernmental agreement with the Commonwealth? What role does that leave for the states? How long before there is a referendum to abolish them? Mr Lucas interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Minister, I would ask you not to keep interjecting. Mrs STUCKEY: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am used to this minister interjecting when he does not like what I have to say, but I would like to continue. What role does that leave for the states? How long before there is a referendum to abolish them, leaving Australia run by a unicameral organisation based in Canberra? Government members interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mrs STUCKEY: As the Prime Minister takes control of our state’s public health system, the Premier must stand up for Queenslanders and give us a guarantee that she will not sell us out behind our backs as she did with asset sales. The general complexity of the national scheme was described by some stakeholders as more of a headache than a panacea, in that the provisions therein could place an increased burden on the area of administration and raise registration fees. Whilst the notion of national registration is warmly received—and I do suggest that people opposite listen, because I am giving them a bit of an accolade—other components of the tranche of legislation are not. They can dish it out, but they cannot take it. These interruptions are just another example of that. As I have said, the LNP will be supporting this national law, and we will be watching very closely to see how provisions in earlier legislation pan out. Ms DARLING (Sandgate—ALP) (4.20 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) Amendment Bill 2010. The bill is the third and final legislative stage for the national registration accreditation scheme and predominantly makes consequential amendments to Health and other portfolio legislation to facilitate the implementation of the national scheme. Currently, the registration of health practitioners is the responsibility of each 13 Apr 2010 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 1279 individual state and territory government. Requirements for registration do vary across jurisdictions, and the professions required to be registered to practise also differ. For example, all jurisdictions register medical practitioners, but only Queensland registers speech pathologists. As a result, across Australia there are more than 80 health practitioner registration boards in operation. In 2005, the Commonwealth government asked the Productivity Commission to undertake a research study to examine issues impacting on the health workforce, including the supply of and demand for health workforce professionals, and proposed solutions to ensure the continued delivery of quality health care over the next 10 years. The report, Australia’s health workforce, was delivered in January 2006 and, amongst other things, recommended the establishment of a single national registration board for health professionals and a single national accreditation board for health professional education and training to deal with workforce shortages and pressures faced by the Australian health workforce and increase their flexibility, responsiveness, sustainability and mobility and, importantly, to reduce red tape. At its meeting of 14 July 2006, the Council of Australian Governments agreed to establish a national registration scheme for health professionals, beginning with the nine professional groups registered in all jurisdictions. COAG further agreed to establish a separate national accreditation scheme for health education and training in order to simplify and improve the consistency of the current arrangements. Following extensive consultation on these proposals, at its meeting of 13 April 2007 COAG agreed to establish a single national registration and accreditation scheme. This model includes a number of major changes to the original 2006 proposal, including combining the registration and accreditation functions into the one national scheme and the creation of an independent advisory council for the scheme. The intergovernmental agreement for a national registration and accreditation scheme for health professionals was signed by COAG on 26 March 2008. Once fully implemented on 1 July 2010, the national scheme will provide a huge range of benefits. It will provide protection for the public by ensuring that only those health practitioners who are suitably trained and qualified to practise are registered. It will provide improved safeguards for the public through the development and implementation of consistent and high-quality registration standards for each of the health professions included in the scheme. It will promote a more flexible, responsive and sustainable health workforce. It will enable health practitioners registered under the national scheme to work across jurisdictions more readily and, importantly, it will reduce red tape for health practitioners through the establishment of the single national scheme that replaces the current system whereby registration is performed by multiple state and territory health practitioner registration authorities, which has been a real impediment to the movement of a quality workforce and career ambitions. The implementation of the national scheme will see the registration of over half a million health professionals, enabling them to practise anywhere within Australia without requiring duplicate registration. On 1 July 2010 the current 72 state and territory registration boards will be replaced by 10 profession specific boards and one agency. One registration system across Australia will reduce the duplication of effort and resources in each state and territory. It will allow a health professional to work anywhere in Australia. Each profession will have a national register that will be publicly available, which will improve safety outcomes for patients as well. The registration process will be simplified and there will be nationally consistent standards of registration for each profession. Initially, there will be a continuation of arrangements for the performance of accreditation functions by existing accreditation bodies, after which the assignment of accreditation functions will be a matter for the national boards. There will also be a continuation of national accreditation bodies managing the assessment of overseas trained professionals whose basic qualifications are not recognised in the list of approved courses of study. There will be mandatory reporting of notifiable conduct of registered health practitioners across all professionals, which is a very important reform, criminal history checking of all new applicants for registration in all professions and auditing of criminal histories of existing registrants. The ministerial council has approved national registration standards and other national board proposals. These include mandatory registration standards that will apply to all health practitioners registered under the national scheme, such as professional indemnity insurance and criminal history checking as well as board-specific registration standards. National boards are currently consulting on their draft codes and guidelines to provide guidance to health practitioners about registration matters. I have been made aware that the Physiotherapy Board of Australia proposed a national recognition of specialist physiotherapists. I acknowledge the great work that our physiotherapists do within the community not only to keep people healthy but also to help people recover quickly from surgery or injury. They play a great role in minimising unnecessary surgical intervention, which not only reduces waiting lists and times as well as the burden on our surgeons but also, in some cases, provides a range of cheaper and healthier options for patients. I understand that further work is being undertaken around Australia to develop criteria for recognising regulated speciality titles. I encourage all interested professionals, particularly allied health professionals, to stay involved in that consultation. 1280 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 13 Apr 2010

I am very pleased with all the hard work that has been done around Australia and the implementation we have seen to date in other states and territories. On behalf of the patients and consumers of Australia, I look forward to this national streamlined and integrated scheme that will see an improvement in health care outcomes for all Queenslanders and Australians. I commend the bill to the House. Ms DAVIS (Aspley—LNP) (4.28 pm): I rise to speak on the Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) Amendment Bill 2010, which was introduced by the Minister for Health on 25 March this year. As I have said in this parliament before, all Queenslanders deserve access to caring, competent and timely health care. Residents in Queensland and certainly in my electorate of Aspley need a system that concentrates on preserving their individual health and puts their family’s health first. Part of ensuring that we deliver the best health care to Queenslanders is recognising and supporting the professionalism of clinical staff who support and deliver services nationwide. As the shadow minister indicated in his contribution, the LNP supports the concept of nationally consistent medical practitioner regulations, as it delivers increased flexibility and portability to the healthcare sector while guaranteeing uniform standards across the country. These uniform standards are designed to improve patient protection by ensuring that only suitable trained and competent practitioners are registered. Uniform standards will also help cut red tape and, as such, facilitate the greater flexibility in the health workforce that we all seek. The process for a national registration and accreditation scheme began with the Productivity Commission’s report of 2006, which highlighted a major shortage of health professionals in Australia, particularly in outer metropolitan, rural and remote communities, and which argued that efficiencies could be achieved by a national system of education and training. COAG agreed and, consequently, legislation was passed in this House to facilitate the introduction of the national scheme in November 2009. This national scheme establishes a number of bodies, including a ministerial council, an advisory council, a series of national boards and a national office. Whilst supportive of the establishment of these new bodies under the national scheme, it is certainly worth reminding the House that during the debate last year we raised the concerns of various stakeholders in relation to the powers of the ministerial council. The ministerial council is accountable to nobody and has reserve powers to direct national boards despite the council having no relevant expertise. This is still a concern of the LNP and we will be certainly monitoring the activities of the council on commencement. This is the final piece of legislation that is required to create the national scheme and, as the explanatory notes state, the legislation’s objectives are to make amendments to legislation across government to accommodate and appropriately reflect the commencement of the national scheme, to make an amendment to the national scheme itself in relation to complaints and to make an amendment to the QIMR Act regarding appointments. Today I would like to concentrate my comments in relation to the amendments to reflect the commencement of the national scheme. To enable the smooth implementation of the national scheme for 14 health professions, each jurisdiction needs to introduce omnibus legislation making consequential and administrative changes to various pieces of legislation. In order to achieve this, the bill seeks to repeal nine acts, amongst those the Medical Practitioners Registration Act, the Nursing Act and the Physiotherapists Registration Act. These repeals will have the effect of abolishing the nine health professional existing state boards as they will be replaced by national boards on commencement of the national scheme. As this bill affects the physiotherapists act, I would briefly like to mention the specific concerns of some of the residents in my electorate of Aspley who have taken the time to contact me. Specifically, I have had contact from physiotherapists who are particularly concerned about the national registration and accreditation scheme as it applies to the definition of specialist services. There is an amount of concern in the physiotherapists community that, as physiotherapy specialisation is not specifically mentioned in the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 in section 13, this discipline will be left behind in the current registration process. I quote from a recent press release from the Australian Physiotherapists Association. They state— APA members have lost confidence in government assertations that national registration would result in improvements for them and their patients and that no profession would be worse off. A decision on Special Physiotherapists being included in the national registration scheme has been delayed by state health ministers indefinitely. The scheme is due to commence in less than 12 weeks and APA physiotherapists demand certainty... I certainly hope that this situation is dealt with by the state health ministers and the APA in the very near future so that surety can be provided to all those patients seeking the services of specialised physiotherapists. The bill also partially repeals the Dental Technicians and Dental Prosthetists Registration Act as the new national scheme will only cover dental prosthetists and not the technicians. Technicians are not covered under the new national scheme as they were only registered here in Queensland and in no other jurisdiction. Importantly, they have little tangible contact with clients. The bill also renames and amends the Pharmacists Registration Act as previously this act not only dealt with pharmacists registration but also pharmacy ownership. Under the legislation, the responsibility for administering pharmacy ownership will transfer from the now abolished pharmacy board to Queensland Health. 13 Apr 2010 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 1281

As I mentioned earlier, the residents of Aspley, and indeed Queensland, deserve access to competent health care. That is why it is encouraging that the legislation seeks to amend the Health Practitioner (Professional Standards) Act to prescribe the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal’s—QCAT’s—procedural arrangements when hearing disciplinary matters under the national law. Serious disciplinary matters relating to professional misconduct or the fraudulent obtaining of a registration should be dealt with efficiently. I certainly hope that, as the minister says in his second reading speech, these changes ‘will support the swift and effective resolution of disciplinary proceedings’. However, I do note that there are some important concerns raised by the medical profession in relation to ‘reportable misconduct’. Under the national scheme, doctors will be forced to break patient confidentiality and report a fellow doctor who suffers from a health condition that has the ‘capacity’ to cause harm to patients. The LNP, AMAQ, AMA and the Doctors Health Advisory Service are all concerned about these provisions in the national scheme as they may have the effect of sending impaired doctors underground and possibly placing patients at further risk. Turning to the next objective of this legislation, I note that the bill amends section 150(5) of the national law act in relation to health complaints entities—in Queensland’s case, the Health Quality and Complaints Commission. The amendment will remove the requirement for health complaints entities to notify national boards of any health, conduct or performance issues raised during statutory conciliation. I also note that the bill will make minor amendments to the Queensland Institute of Medical Research Act to help it perform its statutory functions. I do not often agree with the member for Everton with regard to health matters—particularly with regard to his support for the closure of the Royal Children’s Hospital—but I do agree with his comments about QIMR being a great institution. As he said, it is one of the largest medical research institutions in Australia, with 44 separate laboratories and over 700 people employed, and has been admirably led by Professor Michael Good. Sadly some of these synergies will be lost once the RCH is closed. QIMR needs a governance structure that is appropriate, and the amendments will provide flexibility in relation to the appointment of a new director. In closing, I would like to again concur with the comments by the member for Caloundra in relation to the provision of adequate resources on the ground to support our health professionals. We support the national scheme, but if it is not backed up with appropriate facilities then the best regulation, registration, education and training will make very little difference to the quality of health delivered to Queenslanders. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (4.36 pm): I rise to speak to the Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) Amendment Bill 2010. I reflect from my electorate’s position. I am not talking about the doctors in the electorate, because they are intrinsically involved in the registration process and the disciplinary process in terms of them being subject to it. But, from the community’s point of view, overwhelmingly I believe they are not particularly concerned who registers doctors— whether it is a federal structure or a state structure. What they want to know is that the registration is done competently—that only those doctors or other allied health professionals whom this bill will cover are appropriately reviewed before registration in either Queensland or Australia and that they are appropriate people to carry out these very specialised and much needed services—and that, in the event of a problem arising either in the administration of their chosen field of work or a disciplinary matter, it will be attended to and reviewed by an adequately resourced entity and an entity that will take their complaints seriously. From the feedback I have received in my own electorate, there is general ambivalence as to whether the registration is done at a federal or state level. Their primary concern is that the registration is done properly, with proper investigation into the applicant prior to registration. I have referred a circumstance to the minister’s office in relation to a local doctor who applied for re-registration. They sent the paperwork over the Christmas period and never heard anything back but paid no mind to that because the process, the paperwork, sometimes takes time. But the next communication that that doctor had was that he had been deregistered and had therefore been practising, unbeknownst to him, without registration. The procedures according to the legislation did not appear to be followed—that is, a show cause letter and then a further letter advising of imminent deregistration. I did send the matter off to the health minister’s office. The individual who was liaising with the practice manager lacked interpersonal skills—that is probably the kindest way to put it—and has caused additional heartache, if you like, on the part of that practice. But I look forward to the minister’s response in relation to that matter. It highlighted for me and for the people in that practice the primary concern of the importance of procedural fairness, the importance of registration, the seriousness of registration and the continuity of registration. Also—not in this case but, as I said, from my constituents’ point of view—the suitability of people who are registered at either a state or federal level is their primary concern. Previous speakers have talked about the mandatory reporting requirements in this legislation and in other discussions and debates that we have had. I believe it is a vexed question. One perspective is that doctors who could do with some clinical support and some help with mandatory regulation will go 1282 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 13 Apr 2010 underground. I know it is not an easy question, but I commend the minister for the stand that has been taken. If a doctor or any other medical practitioner who is registered needs support, be that medical, psychological or other support, it is critically important that they receive it. Sometimes our needs are not recognised by ourselves but by somebody who works with or is close to us, and they are the ones who have to reach out for services. To that extent, I think that mandatory reporting—whilst in the eyes of the AMA it has significant problems—and the rationale for it are sound. I would hope that over time the benefits to the system will be highlighted. I think the benefits to individuals, putting aside their area of work, will mean a more positive and wholesome future. The bill inserts a new part into the Health Practitioner (Professional Standards) Act to prescribe QCAT’s procedural arrangements when hearing disciplinary matters under the national laws. I alluded to this at the beginning of my contribution. People want to know that whoever is practising in whatever field of health or allied health is an appropriate person to do that. The corollary to that is that if there is an area of concern, whether it is a disciplinary or other matter, it needs to be properly heard. The resourcing of QCAT and the resourcing of the proceedings will be critically important in terms of the community’s confidence in the process and the ability of the process to be done properly. The bill also allows for consistency between the national law and the Queensland registration acts. It will allow Queensland boards to disclose confidential information to a relevant public entity if they reasonably believe a registrant poses a risk to public health or patient safety. Again, I believe it is critically important to maintain the integrity of services as well as the confidence of the community. It will also create a stand-alone head of power to prescribe continuing professional development requirements for medical radiation technologists ahead of their transition to the national scheme in 2010. Health is one of the fundamental issues for people in our community. That is across all of the disciplines. I guess we concentrate a lot on medical procedures, but all of the disciplines that this legislation covers—psychology, physiotherapy, midwifery—are critical to an individual’s and a family’s ability to function wholly, soundly and with confidence. As I said, this bill brings in national scheme legislation. My community wants good, sound, accessible professionals. I look forward to changes of any sort in the health process to deliver better health services to the community at large but particularly to the residents in the electorate of Gladstone. Mrs KIERNAN (Mount Isa—ALP) (4.43 pm): I rise to speak to the Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) Amendment Bill 2010, which is the third and final legislative stage for the national registration and accreditation scheme. The bill predominantly makes consequential amendments to health and other portfolio legislation to facilitate implementation of the national scheme. The bill also inserts a new part 12A into the Health Practitioner (Professional Standards) Act to provide for the handling of disciplinary proceedings by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, QCAT. The national law does not seek to create a new tribunal system to handle disciplinary matters involving national scheme registrants. Rather than duplicating existing tribunal systems in each participating jurisdiction, the national law instead connects into these systems and provides for each participating jurisdiction’s responsible tribunal to hear disciplinary matters involving national scheme registrants. The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act, enacted by this parliament in 2009, declares the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Queensland’s responsible tribunal for the purposes of the national law. The national law empowers QCAT to hear the most serious disciplinary matters involving national scheme registrants in its original jurisdiction. The national law also gives QCAT jurisdiction to review disciplinary decisions by national boards and panels established by national boards. The Professional Standards Act already provides for QCAT to hear disciplinary matters involving Queensland’s registered professions other than nurses and midwives and to review disciplinary decisions made by Queensland boards and panels under the Queensland suite of health practitioner registration acts. In similar terms, the Nursing Act gives QCAT jurisdiction to hear disciplinary matters involving nurses and midwives and to review disciplinary decisions of the Queensland Nursing Council. The national law is intentionally silent regarding the procedures to be followed by each jurisdiction’s responsible tribunal. This recognises that the tribunal system in each participating jurisdiction operates differently and that a one-size-fits-all approach would not be effective. In order to promote the swift and smooth administration of justice, the bill reproduces the existing tribunal processes prescribed under the Professional Standards Act in relation to disciplinary matters involving Queensland registered professions and applies these to disciplinary matters arising under the national law. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the bill achieves this by creating a stand-alone part 12A of the Professional Standards Act which applies exclusively to matters arising under the national law. With minor amendments, part 12A of the new act mirrors those provisions of the Professional Standards Act which deal with disciplinary proceedings arising under Queensland’s registration acts. This means that QCAT will hear all disciplinary matters essentially in the same way regardless of whether they arise 13 Apr 2010 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 1283 under a Queensland registration act such as the Speech Pathologists Registration Act or under the national law. For example, QCAT will be constituted in all proceedings by a single judicial member assisted by members of the public and professional panels of assessors. The new part 12A also gives QCAT jurisdiction to review certain of its own disciplinary decisions in relation to national scheme registrants and allows for appeal of certain disciplinary decisions to the Court of Appeal. Again, to promote the consistent administration of justice, the further review and appeal rights of national scheme registrants will be largely identical to those of Queensland registered professions. For example, a national scheme registrant, like a Queensland registrant, will be able to ask QCAT to review its decision that they are impaired or to impose conditions on their registration. In line with this existing power in relation to Queensland registrants, QCAT will be able to set a period of up to three years within which the registrant may not seek a further review of one of its decisions. This gives QCAT scope to determine a reasonable period within which the registrant can address the issues which gave rise to the disciplinary decision in the first place and to revisit its original decision after that period has elapsed. The national law also gives responsible tribunals jurisdiction to review certain non-disciplinary decisions of national boards such as the decision to refuse to register a person. As is currently the case with equivalent decisions under the Queensland health practitioner registration acts, the QCAT Act will prescribe the form, constitution and procedures of QCAT when hearing reviews of these decisions under the national law. On that note, I commend the bill to the House. Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (4.49 pm): I rise to support the Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) Amendment Bill 2010. I note that it is a direct result of the Council of Australian Governments intergovernmental agreement. Signed on 26 March 2008 the agreement stipulates a single national registration, as has been said here many times this afternoon, and accreditation scheme for nominated health professions. I appreciate the hard work that has gone behind this legislation and the efforts that have been made to ensure that it is a thorough and very progressive piece of legislation. I wholeheartedly support this bill as it will improve the efficiency, safety and practice for both health professionals and, of course, the general public. This bill will add to the previously enacted two pieces of legislation—the Health Practitioner Regulation (Administrative Arrangements) National Law Act 2008, the administrative arrangements act, and the Health Practitioner National Law Act 2009, the national law act. As the final step, this bill will ensure a smooth commencement of a national health scheme in Queensland. The Council of Australian Governments has acknowledged a number of health practitioners in the national scheme to operate from 1 July 2010. I will not go through them all except to say that chiropractors, dental practitioners, including dental therapists and dental hygienists, and eight others will be included and registered under this particular act. I wanted to make very quick mention of something that pleases me greatly. From 1 July 2012 the following health workers will also be included in the scheme: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practitioners who are not currently registered in Queensland, Chinese medicine practitioners who are currently not registered in Queensland, medical radiation practitioners who are registered in Queensland as medical radiation technologists under the Medical Radiation Technologist Registration Act 2001 and occupational therapists. I believe that it is vital to include these health professionals. I think their great contribution is often overlooked with the major emphasis being placed on the more well- known mainstream professions. I am so pleased that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health workers will be included. I hope that this will contribute in some part to greater recognition in the future. The ATSI health workers are a godsend in my electorate and the wider Townsville region. One example is TAIHS, the Townsville Aboriginal and Islander Health Service Ltd, which over many years has empowered Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to take control of their individual family and community health needs in order to improve their health. This encompasses much more. As we know, health means the total wellbeing of a person and the wellbeing of that person’s community which includes their physical, social, emotional, cultural, spiritual and economic wellbeing. This legislation is of particular interest to my constituents as one of the largest hospitals in Queensland, the Townsville Hospital, is in my electorate of Mundingburra. Furthermore, health care and social assistance is one of the greatest employers in Townsville with 11 per cent of the population involved in the industry. In the future that figure is predicted to be even higher. The stakes are very high and many will be watching this national scheme very closely. My office has received lots of correspondence regarding this bill from several practitioners. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the extensive consultation that has taken place across the nation prior to the signing of the COAG agreement. This has included the release of a series of consultation papers, the release of exposure draft legislation, the holding of a number of state, territory and national forums and meetings with representatives of key professional and consumer organisations. This consultation absolutely reveals the widespread stakeholder support for the national scheme. 1284 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 13 Apr 2010

There are many key stakeholders involved in the development of the current bill. I will name a few. They include the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation National Agency, the national agency, which was established under the national law to provide administrative functions; the Mater Misericordiae Health Services Brisbane; the Office of the Health Practitioner Registration Boards; the Office of the Medical Board; the QIMR; the QNC; the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia; and the Pharmacy Guild of Queensland. The OHPRB, OMB and QNC support this bill. The Pharmaceutical Society and the Pharmacy Guild support the amendments to the Pharmacists Registration Act. The QIMR supports the amendments to the QIMR Act. I believe the Queensland government is a leader in this regard. Its ongoing improvements to the health system will be ones that we can be extremely proud of. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—LNP) (4.55 pm): In rising to speak in the debate on the Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) Amendment Bill I wish to speak particularly to three issues. The first is the system of national management that we are moving towards not only in terms of the professions outlined under this bill but also with the federal government’s moves to take over our hospitals. I also want to talk about speech therapists who, at this stage, are not part of this legislation. There are 14 separate health professions that are part of this legislation but speech therapists are not part of it. Lastly, I want to speak about QIMR. The Queensland Institute of Medical Research, which is part of this legislation, has been an outstanding research facility in this state, particularly with regard to its work on cancer and mosquito borne diseases. The move within this bill is to provide greater flexibility with regard to the terms of directors’ appointments and to allow the chief executive rather than the minister to approve agreements entered into by QIMR. Effectively, that will allow the appointment of directors for terms that are more amenable to attracting directors of great talent. There have been some outstanding directors at QIMR. Professor Michael Good is absolutely world class and highly regarded not only for his leadership but also for his scholastic and research ability. He has been an outstanding leader and he is a great Queenslander. Before him, Professor Lawrie Powell set a wonderful standard as well. The current requirement is a seven-year time frame for directors. It is important that, if we want to continue to attract people of that calibre, there is a little bit more flexibility. That is what this bill seeks to introduce. In talking about QIMR I would like to recognise the wonderful work not only of people like Professor Michael Good but also of the scientific and support staff of QIMR. It truly is one of the great institutes of the world. As a result, it has attracted some quite amazing sponsorship. Initially it came from an anonymous sponsor. In my time as health minister there was an anonymous sponsor. Only the director-general and the Premier knew who he was. In later years it has been publicised that it was Chuck Feeney. He has provided magnificent support to QIMR over a number of years. I would also like to recognise Clive Berghofer from Toowoomba who was the previous member for Toowoomba South and mayor of Toowoomba. I know his initial donation to QIMR was $5 million. It was a wonderful donation from a Queenslander who has built up his business, mainly, in earthmoving, the development of subdivisions, building and hotels. He gave back something to the Queensland community. He has always donated very heavily to many organisations throughout Toowoomba. But in this case it was for something that he saw as doing wonderful things for our state. He recognised the wonderful scientific work that was being done. Speech therapists are one of the most important professions. Whilst this bill covers some 14 health professions in terms of providing national mutual recognition systems, speech therapists are not included. Very often we do not understand the importance of speech therapists, particularly for children. If young children have a speech defect, it can affect their self-confidence and it can affect their learning. If those children are in isolated or rural areas, it sets them back in those early years when it is so important for them to be able to keep up with the other kids in the class and it is something from which many never recover. On the weekend I was speaking to a speech therapist who is a close friend of my daughter. We have to understand their workload and the number of cases they have to knock back because they simply do not have the time. The fact that there are not enough speech therapists to provide professional support, particularly to young children, is quite concerning. From memory I think an OP 3 is required for speech therapy. I wonder whether we should look at lowering that score to enable students who perhaps did not get an OP of 3 but who still have the intelligence to cope with the university course to be able to undertake it, because we have to think about the children and the need for speech therapists. We cannot keep denying young people the opportunity to go to university to do the courses that they want to do rather than forcing them to do another course that they may not want to do. We have to get more students into these courses so there are more speech therapists out there providing that very important therapy to young children so that no child is disadvantaged. Having a speech defect is like lead in the saddlebags. It makes it hard for them to keep up and catch up, unless they have speech therapy tuition. 13 Apr 2010 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 1285

The bill before the House today is the third and final piece of legislation on this national scheme for registration and accreditation of health professionals and practitioners. Whilst it makes it easier and more convenient in a mobile society for people to be recognised regardless of what side of a state border they work on, we are gradually moving to a scheme where everything is managed or supervised from a more distant place. In the same way that this system will be under a national management scheme or national oversight, there will be risks to the health system due to it being managed from Canberra. Without taking a particular side, the further away management and supervision the more layers there are in-between which means less accountability and less local knowledge. If our federal health minister is in , are they going to worry about a problem at the Proserpine Hospital? Conversely, if our health minister lives in Proserpine, are they going to worry about problems in a rural hospital in Perth, South Australia or Victoria? We are moving to a dangerous situation and I think the nation is generally being conned and being told that one set of bureaucrats and politicians who live further away from where the service is being provided can do it better than another set who live closer to where the service is being provided. There is no difference in terms of funding. It is all going to be the same. The federal government is going to take away GST funding from the states to replace that extra money expended by it. So there is no extra money; it is just a transfer of money. The only difference is that it is going to be a cold, sterile and calculating casemix system where economists and statisticians prevail over patient care and local management, as is provided at the moment. I want to raise that issue so that members of this House on both sides start to think about what this nation may possibly be moving to. I am a strong believer in the principle of local management and local ownership. There is more human care and more patient care when it is managed close to the people, and there is more accountability. If a state minister is fully responsible, there is more accountability because he or she is the one who has to answer complaints about bed shortages, waiting lists, lack of operations and so forth. Mark my words: if we end up with a big, generic national system, the ability of ordinary people through their local members to raise issues and to have them recognised and acted upon quickly and urgently will disappear because we will be managed from a distance and we will be managed through layers of structure and bureaucracy. I know the opposition is supporting this legislation because it is the third phase of a move towards a national scheme, but I certainly hope that as a result we will see better education, better opportunities and better availability of these professions for the public. I certainly hope that the accountability, the openness and the closeness to the people whom they are actually working for and serving on behalf of government or private institutions is not affected by going to a fully national scheme. Ms JOHNSTONE (Townsville—ALP) (5.05 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) Amendment Bill 2010. This bill puts in place the final piece of legislation to enable the national registration and accreditation scheme to commence on 1 July this year. As the minister said in his second reading speech, this single national scheme replaces separate health practitioner registration schemes currently in operation for these professions in each of the states and territories. One of the amendments of the bill is to exempt registrant members of the root cause analysis teams conducted under the Ambulance Service Act or the Health Services Act from mandatory notification requirements of the national law, except in the most serious of cases. This is an important point and I want to spend some time discussing the role and subsequent exemptions for registrant members of root cause analysis teams. The Ambulance Service Act and the Health Services Act provide for the conduct of root cause analyses into reportable events occurring during the provision of ambulance and health services. A reportable event is one of a range of adverse outcomes suffered by a person in receiving a health or ambulance service, such as the death of a person due to an unreasonable delay or the incorrect procedure being performed on that person. RCAs are systemic processes for identifying the factors that contributed to reportable events as well as any remedial measures which may be taken to prevent such tragedies recurring in the future. An RCA is not intended to investigate any individual practitioner’s professional competence or to assign blame for an event. Rather, an RCA focuses on identifying and improving policies, practices and procedures. For RCAs to be fully effective, health practitioners have to be able to feel that they can be frank and open in cooperating with the RCA teams without fearing recrimination for any admissions they make. For this reason, both the Ambulance Service Act and the Health Services Act attach strict confidentiality requirements to RCA processes. The national law requires a health practitioner to make a mandatory notification of notifiable conduct by another health practitioner which they become aware of in practising their profession. Notifiable conduct includes practising the profession while intoxicated, engaging in sexual misconduct, placing the public at risk of substantial harm by practising while impaired, or placing the public at risk of harm by practising in a way which represents a departure from accepted professional standards. However, the national law also provides for participating jurisdictions to explicitly exempt practitioners involved in certain statutory processes in part or in whole from the mandatory notification requirements of the national law. 1286 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 13 Apr 2010

Health practitioners registered under the national law from 1 July 2010 will from time to time be asked to participate in RCAs under both acts. In order to appropriately balance the strict confidentiality requirements of the current RCA processes under these acts with the mandatory notification requirements of the national law, the bill amends both acts to exempt the health practitioner members of RCA teams from the mandatory notification requirements under the national law. However, this exemption will be displaced where the RCA reveals conduct by another practitioner which constitutes substantial risk to the public. This will mean that, where a practitioner member of an RCA team becomes aware of conduct by another practitioner which is placing patients or members of the public at risk of serious harm, they will be required to notify the national agency of this conduct. This strikes a reasonable balance between the intent of the RCA provisions to provide a means for the Queensland Ambulance Service and Queensland Health to openly examine their own actions and the intent of the national law to protect public safety by providing for mandatory notification of dangerous or inappropriate conduct. It is my opinion that the national registration will provide a safer system for patients and professional health workers alike. Like many other parts of regional Australia, Townsville wants to attract a range of quality health professionals and allied health professionals. This system will enhance the work being done by James Cook University’s medical school. It will create more opportunities for diversity in the health workers and health professionals we can attract to Townsville and to other parts of North Queensland. We are starting to see real benefits from investing in our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander graduates. We currently have Dr Raymond Blackman working at the Joyce Palmer Health Service on Palm Island. He is a Palm Island man who has come back there to practise. This bill will assist in making it easier for us to attract these workers to North Queensland. Ultimately, what ordinary people want is access to a range of quality health professionals who meet high professional standards, and this bill will assist in that. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Health) (5.10 pm), in reply: I thank members of the House for their contributions to the debate on the Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) Amendment Bill. The bill represents the third and final stage of primary legislation to implement the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the Health Professions. Established under a 2008 COAG agreement, the national scheme provides for consistent national standards and processes for the registration and accreditation of health professionals across Australia, commencing on 1 July 2010. As members will be aware, the first piece of legislation for the national scheme received royal assent in Queensland in November 2008 and the second piece of legislation, the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act, received royal assent in Queensland in November 2009. The bill primarily makes a number of administrative and consequential amendments to legislation across government required to facilitate implementation of the national scheme. The key amendments include the repeal or partial rescission of 14 Health portfolio acts, which are being replaced by the national law, as well as definitional amendments to 42 acts across government to reflect the commencement of the new scheme; transferring responsibility for administering pharmacy ownership restrictions from the Pharmacists Board of Queensland, which is being abolished on commencement of the national scheme, to Queensland Health; making minor amendments to the national law act to insert a head of power to allow the Governor in Council to make regulations containing provisions of a transitional nature to ensure the smooth commencement of the national scheme in Queensland; amending the national law to ensure that the statutory privilege attached to conciliation processes conducted by participating jurisdictions’ health complaints entities are not inadvertently undermined by the mandatory notification requirements of the national law; and providing an exemption from the mandatory notification obligations under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act for health practitioners participating in root cause analysis teams under the Health Services Act or the Ambulance Service Act or who are members of quality assurance committees under the Health Services Act. However, this exemption does not apply in cases where a practitioner forms a reasonable belief that another practitioner’s conduct constitutes a substantial risk to the public. Further amendments include establishing the procedures to be followed by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal when conducting disciplinary proceedings in relation to national scheme registrants; entitling national scheme registrants to seek further review by the tribunal of certain of its own decisions, allowing the appeal of certain tribunal decisions to the Court of Appeal and establishing the procedures to be followed by the tribunal in conducting further reviews of its decisions; and making minor amendments to the Queensland Institute of Medical Research Act to help the QIMR perform its statutory functions more effectively and efficiently while an ongoing review of the QIMR Act is being completed. As the bill predominantly relates to consequential amendments to implement the national registration and accreditation scheme, at this point I would like to provide an update to the members of the House regarding the national scheme. Queensland, as the host jurisdiction, has previously enacted the first two pieces of legislation for the scheme. The COAG agreement contemplates participating 13 Apr 2010 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 1287 jurisdictions each introducing omnibus legislation making those consequential and administrative amendments required to enable the smooth implementation of the national scheme in that jurisdiction. This legislation is known as each jurisdiction’s bill C. This bill represents Queensland’s bill C and differs slightly from other jurisdictions’ bills C in that Queensland does not have to adopt the national law. This action was achieved in the second act for the national scheme. Other participating jurisdictions are currently introducing, or have already passed, their bills C. The ACT, the Northern Territory, New South Wales and Victoria have introduced and passed their adopting legislation. , which is introducing corresponding legislation, and Tasmania and South Australia, which are introducing adopting legislation, anticipate introducing this legislation shortly. The following bodies have functions under the national scheme: the Australian Health Workforce Ministerial Council, the Australian Health Workforce Advisory Council, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, an agency management committee and national profession specific boards and committees of these boards as required. In March 2009 the ministerial council appointed an agency management committee, headed by Mr Peter Allen, to govern the Australian Health Practitioner National Agency. The ministerial council also appointed the members of the 10 national boards in August 2009. The ministerial council has approved national registration standards and other national board proposals. These include mandatory registration standards that will apply to all health practitioners registered under the national scheme, such as professional indemnity insurance and criminal history checking as well as board-specific registration standards. National boards are currently consulting on draft codes and guidelines to provide guidance to health practitioners about registration matters. I turn now to the other matters addressed by the bill. The bill repeals, from 1 July 2010, the health practitioner registration acts that deal with the registration and accreditation of health professions joining the national scheme on 1 July 2010, being the Chiropractors Registration Act, the Dental Practitioners Registration Act, the Medical Practitioners Registration Act, the Nursing Act, the Optometrists Registration Act, the Osteopaths Registration Act, the Podiatrists Registration Act, the Physiotherapists Registration Act and the Psychologists Registration Act. The repeal of these acts will also abolish the registration boards and the Queensland Nursing Council, which are currently responsible for performing registration and accreditation functions in relation to the transitioning professions. From 1 July 2010 these functions will be wholly performed by national boards established under the national law. Dental prosthetists are transitioning to the national scheme from 1 July 2010 but dental technicians are not. Both professions are currently registered under the Dental Technicians and Dental Prosthetists Act. The bill therefore rescinds the application of that act to dental prosthetists from 1 July 2010 and renames and appropriately adapts the act to reflect its restricted application to dental technicians only. Pharmacists registered under the Pharmacists Registration Act are transitioning to the national scheme from its commencement. However, the act also imposes restrictions on the ownership of pharmacy businesses, which the COAG agreement specifies are to remain the responsibility of individual jurisdictions. The bill therefore partially repeals the Pharmacists Registration Act from 1 July 2010, continuing the ownership restrictions in force. The act consequently also renames that act as the Pharmacy Business Ownership Act 2001 to reflect its amended purpose. The Pharmacists Registration Act currently specifies who may own a pharmacy business and limits the number of pharmacy businesses that may be owned by a person at any time. The current restrictions were introduced in 2005 following a national review of pharmacy regulation under the National Competition Policy. The amendments in the bill do not change the current restrictions but give responsibility for monitoring and enforcing those restrictions to Queensland Health instead of the Pharmacists Board of Queensland. The administration of the pharmacy business ownership restrictions by Queensland Health is an interim arrangement only. After the national scheme commences, Queensland Health will conduct a comprehensive review as to who should administer the restrictions in the long term. The review will examine all feasible options, including whether a separate statutory pharmacy authority should be set up to perform the role of administering the restrictions. As Queensland, unlike most other Australian jurisdictions, does not require pharmacy premises to be licensed, the review will also examine whether licensing should be introduced in Queensland. Key pharmacy stakeholders fully support the amendments and the proposed arrangements regarding the review. The bill amends the Queensland Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act to include a transitional regulation-making head of power. This power will enable Queensland to make regulations, where necessary, to provide for transitional provisions to support implementation of the national law. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has correctly noted that the inclusion of the transitional regulation-making power may not have sufficient regard to the rights and liberties of individuals or sufficient regard to parliament. This is because the power allows the amendment of an act other than by another act and has retrospective application. I note the committee’s acknowledgement that the rationale for the breach of these fundamental legislative principles is fully outlined and justified in the explanatory notes to the bill. 1288 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 13 Apr 2010

As implementation of the national scheme draws closer, several jurisdictions, including Queensland, have identified the need for legislative transitional provisions to facilitate implementation in each jurisdiction. Transitional provisions may be required, for example, to deal with outstanding applications under a right to information act or to continue current area-of-need declarations. These transitional provisions are often jurisdiction specific and are therefore not contained in the national law. A regulation-making head of power in the national law act will enable the making of a Queensland regulation to address a transitional matter relevant to Queensland. As a consequence of the transitional nature of potential regulations, it is necessary to include the ability to apply a transitional provision retrospectively, but only to the date on which Queensland enters the scheme, which is 1 July 2010. The power is limited to a regulation providing for a matter of a transitional nature only. The power is also subject to a sunset clause, which provides for the expiry of the power on 30 June 2013, which is 12 months after the transition of the second cohort of health professions to the national scheme on 1 July 2012. The bill amends the national law to exempt conciliation processes from the requirement otherwise imposed on health complaints entities, such as Queensland’s Health Quality and Complaints Commission, to give notice to a relevant registration board of health, conduct or performance issues concerning a health practitioner. The national law currently requires health complaints entities to give notice to relevant national boards of any issues concerning the health, conduct or performance of a practitioner raised during statutory conciliation and other processes. In a joint letter to the Australian Health Workforce Ministerial Council, all health complaints commissioners, except New South Wales, raised concerns that the application of this requirement to conciliation could inadvertently undermine the statutory privilege attached to this process in each jurisdiction. I will table a copy of that in a moment. The ministerial council subsequently agreed to amend the national law to exempt conciliation from this requirement. This amendment does not alter the ability for the HQCC to notify the relevant national board of an issue that arises in relation to a registered health practitioner that meets the criteria for a mandatory notification under the national law. The intent of the mandatory notification system under the national scheme is to protect the public by enabling instances of serious misconduct by registered health practitioners, and serious instances of impairment of health students, to be identified and dealt with appropriately by the boards. The provisions arise from a concern that in the past a failure to report notifiable conduct of registered health practitioners may have prevented boards from taking appropriate action to protect the public. The test for whether a report should be made is that the registrant forms the reasonable belief during the practice of the profession. In cases where a clinician is consulted by the HQCC about a case, particularly during the preliminary assessment stage, the mandatory reporting obligation would apply to the clinician as it is deemed that the clinician is providing advice in the practice of their profession. In these cases the clinician is also required to bring the matter to the attention of the HQCC and the usual information exchange processes already enshrined in the HQCC act ensure that the HQCC notifies the relevant registration board. This information exchange process will continue under the national scheme. In cases where, during preparation of conciliation material for a practitioner, information about serious misconduct is expressed about that practitioner or another practitioner, the HQCC would end or suspend the conciliation process and notify the relevant registration board as a matter of public interest under the HQCC Act. The mandatory notification obligations under the national scheme currently apply to approved quality assurance committees at public and private sector health service facilities and professional and training associations. Mandatory notification also applies to health practitioners taking part in root cause analysis processes conducted under the Health Services Act and the Ambulance Service Act. The nature of QAC and RCA processes require an RCA to focus on identifying and improving policies, practices and procedures rather than laying blame on the conduct of individuals. Furthermore, a root cause analysis must be stopped if the team conducting it becomes aware that the event being examined involved either a blameworthy act or impaired capacity on the part of an individual involved. The imposition of the mandatory notification requirement could in these cases subvert the purpose for which these statutory mechanisms are established by undermining health practitioners’ confidence in the confidentiality of disclosures to these mechanisms, confidentiality which is intended to secure their cooperation. The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act recognises the nature of QAC and RCA processes and provides an exemption from mandatory notification if a practitioner has formed the belief that another practitioner has engaged in serious misconduct during the course of the practitioner exercising functions as a member of a quality assurance committee or other similar body. However, the exemption only applies if the QAC or similar body is approved or authorised under an act of a participating jurisdiction and the governing act prohibits disclosure of the information. Accordingly, it is open to jurisdictions to nominate in legislation those bodies whose practitioner members are in part or in whole exempt from the mandatory notification requirements of the national law and to prescribe the extent of this exemption. 13 Apr 2010 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 1289

For this reason, the bill provides an exemption from the mandatory notification obligations for RCAs under the Health Services Act and the Ambulance Service Act and QACs under the Health Services Act. However, in certain circumstances the risk of harm to the public will outweigh the benefits of maintaining confidentiality in relation to QACs and RCAs. For this reason, the bill provides that the exemption does not apply where a practitioner forms a reasonable belief that another practitioner’s conduct which is the subject of the QAC investigation or RCA constitutes a substantial risk to the public. I believe this strikes a reasonable balance between the intent of the RCA and QAC provisions to enable agencies to openly examine and learn from their own actions and the intent of the mandatory notification requirements under the national law to protect public safety. The national law provides for each participating jurisdiction’s responsible tribunal to hear the most serious disciplinary matters involving national scheme registrants. The national law also provides for responsible tribunals to review disciplinary decisions of national boards and panels. However, the national law is mostly silent regarding the procedures to be followed by a responsible tribunal in exercising its original and review jurisdiction, leaving these to each jurisdiction to determine. The national law act declares the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, QCAT, created under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, to be Queensland’s responsible tribunal for the purposes of the national scheme. To enable QCAT to perform this role effectively, the bill inserts a new stand-alone part 12A into the Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act prescribing QCAT’s procedures when conducting disciplinary proceedings in relation to national scheme registrants. These include the requirement that the tribunal be constituted by a judicial member and that the tribunal be assisted in hearings by members of the public and professional panels of assessors. The existing provisions of the Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act already deal with equivalent procedural matters in relation to disciplinary proceedings arising under Queensland registration acts and will continue to do so. In the interests of the swift and smooth administration of justice, new part 12A closely reflects, with only minor necessary amendments, these existing provisions of the act. This means that QCAT will hear all health practitioner disciplinary matters in essentially the same way, despite whether they arise under a Queensland registration act or under the national law. The Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act currently allows QCAT to review certain of its own disciplinary decisions in relation to health practitioners and allows for appeal of certain disciplinary decisions to the Court of Appeal. The existing provisions of the act will continue to perform this function in relation to Queensland-registered professions. Again, to promote the consistent administration of justice, new part 12A gives identical further review and appeal rights of national scheme registrants, with these rights arising in relation to equivalent decisions. The national law also gives responsible tribunals jurisdiction to review certain non-disciplinary decisions of national boards, such as the decision to refuse to register a person. As is currently the case with equivalent decisions under the Queensland health practitioner registration acts, the QCAT Act will prescribe the form, constitution and procedures of QCAT when hearing reviews of these decisions under the national law. To enhance the QIMR’s effective operation, the bill amends the QIMR Act to provide flexibility in the term of appointment of the QIMR director and enables the function of approving agreements and arrangements entered into by the QIMR to be exercised by Queensland Health’s director-general rather than the minister. The QIMR Council and the QIMR Trust are statutory bodies established under the QIMR Act. The QIMR Council has the governance while the QIMR Trust has the function of raising and investing funds for the QIMR’s research activities. The division of responsibilities between the council and the trust is currently hindering the strategic management of the QIMR and the separation of functions does not provide for the clear and unified direction of the QIMR. Having dual statutory bodies also creates duplication of resources for the QIMR, as the council and the trust both require separate administrative support and have separate reporting requirements. To help QIMR operate more efficiently and effectively the bill amends the QIMR Act to provide for the abolition of the QIMR Trust and enables the council to assume responsibility for the trust’s functions. Transitional provisions in the bill provide for the trust’s assets and liabilities to vest in the council and deal with other necessary transitional arrangements. The consequential amendment to remove a reference to the QIMR Trust in a non-Health portfolio act is also included in the bill. QIMR has indicated the flexibility in the available term of appointment would increase the effectiveness of appointing a director for the QIMR. The bill therefore amends the act to allow a director to be appointed for up to seven years rather than an actual period of seven years. The act also allows the council to enter into agreements and arrangements with other entities for purposes of the act but provides that all such agreements and arrangements are subject to approval by the minister. This approval requirement can adversely affect the council’s timely negotiation and finalisation of agreements and arrangements. To enhance the QIMR Council’s effective operation, the bill amends the act to enable the approval function to be exercised by Queensland Health’s director- general instead of the minister. 1290 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 13 Apr 2010

The member for Caloundra raised a number of queries. He raised issues in relation to the role of ministers in accreditation functions under the national scheme. Based on feedback provided during consultations, ministers agreed that accreditation standards would be approved by national boards established for the health professions to ensure they are developed and approved largely independent of government. Registration standards and accreditation standards will be developed by people with the appropriate expertise. Accreditation standards will be approved by the national boards after being developed by an accreditation authority. The ministerial council may exercise its reserve power only if, in its opinion, a new or amended accreditation standard will have a substantive and negative impact on the recruitment and supply of health practitioners. When deciding whether to use its reserve power, the ministerial council must first give consideration to the potential impact of the direction on the quality and safety of health care before issuing the direction. The intent of the mandatory notification system under the national scheme is to protect the public by enabling instances of serious misconduct by registered health practitioners to be identified and dealt with appropriately by national boards. The test as to whether a report should be made is that the registrant forms a reasonable belief during the practice of the profession. This means that discussions between spouses who are both medical practitioners in a social or home setting will not trigger the obligation to report. However, spouses who are both medical practitioners and who work together will be required to report. This is considered to be in the best interests of patient safety and applies the same obligation to spouses who work together as siblings, cousins or other relatives who work together. On the same basis, an officer of the HQCC who is also a registered health practitioner—the member asked me about the chair—will not be obligated to report instances of serious misconduct of a registered health practitioner while investigating or preparing conciliation material. This is because the officer has not formed the belief of misconduct during the practice of the profession—they are not there practising. However, in a case where a clinician is consulted by the HQCC about a case, particularly during the preliminary assessment stage, the obligation would apply to the clinician as it is deemed the clinician is providing advice in the practice of their profession. In these cases the clinician is also required to bring the matter to the attention of the HQCC and the usual information exchange process is already enshrined in the HQCC Act to ensure that the HQCC notifies the relevant registration board. This information exchange process will continue under the national scheme. It may be that the national board is happy for the HQCC to deal with it, but the notification is there. In cases where, during the preparation of conciliation material for a practitioner, information about serious misconduct is expressed about another practitioner, the HQCC would end or suspend the conciliation process and notify the relevant registration board as a matter of public interest under sections 75 and 76 of the act. The member requested clarification about the consistency of decision making of the responsible tribunals and courts. Consistent with the COAG IGA, the national law does not cover the processes for responsible tribunals and courts. However, consistent decision making was required under the IGA and for this reason the decisions that may be made by a responsible tribunal or court are set out in the national law. As part of good decision making, it is expected that responsible tribunals and courts would look at legislative precedent. The decision of the responsible tribunal must be communicated to the national board. This includes decisions made by the tribunal in a co-regulatory decision. I take the honourable member’s point on that. Presumably, the Court of Appeal and higher courts will start to develop a body of law insofar as that, but many of these cases do, in fact, turn on their facts. The member for Caloundra sought clarification of the difference between reviews and appeals in relation to the amendments to the Professional Standards Act. The amendment enables QCAT to have a role in making a decision in relation to the health, conduct and performance matters under part 8 of the national law. QCAT has two functions in its original jurisdiction. The first function is to make decisions referred directly to it under part 8 of the national law. The second function is to periodically revisit its own decisions on health, conduct and performance matters upon application by the registrant. These later decisions are further reviewable and in these cases QCAT may specify the time period during which the registrant may not apply for the decision to be revisited by QCAT. In its review jurisdiction, the national law provides that QCAT as the responsible tribunal may review decisions in relation to health, conduct and performance matters made by other decision-making bodies such as boards or panels. In these cases, the decision may be confirmed, satisfied or changed. In addition, the registrant may at any time appeal a decision of QCAT to the Court of Appeal if the basis of the appeal is a question of law by right or a question of fact by leave. This means, for example, that if QCAT decided a registrant was impaired and the registrant believed they were not the registrant must first apply for leave to appeal. Different courts may interpret every piece of legislation differently. Of course, these are subject to the question of precedent ultimately, particularly when they go to higher courts. I commend the bill to the House. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. 13 Apr 2010 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 1291

Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 14, as read, agreed to. Clause 15— Mr McARDLE (5.33 pm): Clause 15 is the transitional regulation provision which operates until 30 June 2013. I understand that that will cater for situations that may arise that do need to be dealt with but may not be in contemplation now. Also it relates to those four additional professions that will come into play in 2012 and also at the end of 2013. The provisions expire; it is a bit like a Henry VIII clause to a certain extent. What I am concerned about here, of course, is that regulations are a method whereby this parliament does not get to consider the provisions adequately. They come in and then we have to consider what takes place by way of a motion and then debate them accordingly. Can the minister explain the background to this particular provision and, more importantly, why this method has been adopted? Mr LUCAS: With any national scheme there may be particular transitional provisions that relate to Queensland alone. So we cannot really put it, I am told, in national law itself. These things may arise suddenly. All other jurisdictions are doing it, but I will give the member an example. A regulation may be made to provide that an application made under the Queensland RTI act that has not been finalised may continue to deal with the national law under the legislation under which the application was made. You might say the RTI application goes away; all the material is now to be sent off to the national board. Those are the sorts of things that are appropriately dealt with by regulation. That is similar, for example, to the approach taken to the transition of complaints and notifications to the national scheme which 289 of the law provides. For example, if before the participation day a registration authority had started but not completed, then we do it under those new procedures. So that is an example of those sorts of provisions. They are not uncommon, but they will arise in the context of it. They will not have effect other than from 1 July 2010. Of course, as we all know, regulations are subject to disallowance. So in a sense, if the issue is agitated and argued in parliament it can be agitated and argued in parliament by way of a vote on legislation or a vote on a disallowance on a regulation, although I am not saying they are the same thing. While I am here I will table a copy of my letter dated today to the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. Tabled paper: Letter, dated 13 April 2010, to Mrs Jo-Ann Miller MP, Chair of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, from Hon. Paul Lucas MP, Deputy Premier and Minister for Health, in relation to the Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) Amendment Bill [2051]. Mr McARDLE: So the minister is saying that this particular clause will cover those unique situations that would arise as a consequence of things that cannot be anticipated or things that will occur between now and 2012 and between 2012 and 2013 in relation to the four new professions to be brought into play? Mr LUCAS: I would be very surprised if we are not back here with other legislation in the future. I would love to be able to give the member some certainty, but I cannot. I would be surprised about that. I concede that governments should use the privilege afforded to them by the parliament in relation to regulations sparingly because the appropriate way to deal with more significant matters is by way of amendment to the act dealt with in the ordinary way. So if the member is asking me if I can give him an undertaking about these silly things, yes, I can say that, except he might say, ‘I don’t agree with your interpretation of a particular act in a particular place.’ Mr McArdle interjected. Mr LUCAS: Yes, but it should not be lightly used. Clause 15, as read, agreed to. Clauses 16 to 55, as read, agreed to. Clause 56— Mr McARDLE (5.38 pm): Proposed section 398Z on page 47 of the bill is the provision I am looking at under clause 56. That particular provision relates to evidence in relation to NRAS hearings. It says the court or tribunal may receive in evidence a transcript et cetera from a court or tribunal and from that transcript it can draw conclusions of fact from the evidence that it considers appropriate. That is a very unusual provision because what it says is that, without seeing the witnesses or hearing the testimony, the tribunal can form a conclusion as to fact based upon the content of a transcript. It does seem to be very unusual because, as the minister knows, courts normally act on the basis of the evidence—viewing the evidence and viewing the relevant witnesses—and from that provision they then determine whether or not a witness is believable and from that then draw a conclusion of fact. To me it seems that this particular provision removes what has been a long understood principle in legal proceedings: it removes the capacity for a witness to be heard, to dispute and to give the tribunal an overall encompassing situation to draw the facts from. 1292 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 13 Apr 2010

Mr LUCAS: I thank the shadow minister for the question. I am advised, although I will have this clarified, that it is essentially the same as the current professional standards provision. It is worthwhile noting, though, that it will not be uncommon for proceedings to involve someone who may have either been registered overseas or had qualifications overseas or indeed been the subject of disciplinary proceedings overseas. We all know, whether it is in relation to the conduct of the medical profession or indeed a whole lot of other areas, that there is variability in what one might expect or be able to receive in terms of evidence. Ultimately, the tribunal hearing the matter has to exercise, based upon the submissions before it, some judgement as to the competing quality and veracity of material and the like. But I think if they were not available to admit overseas material, except if it were in the most pristine way, then that may not necessarily be something that would be in the public interest. All I am simply saying is that the provision proposed allows them to do it in a way that they think is appropriate. It does not say that they must do it in that way. I think that is probably as far as I can take it. Clause 56, as read, agreed to. Clauses 57 to 66, as read, agreed to. Clause 67— Mr McARDLE (5.43 pm): Clause 67 refers to the meaning of ‘continuing professional development requirements’. On page 75 it says that they ‘are requirements, prescribed under a regulation, that if satisfied demonstrate that an applicant for renewal’ et cetera. What I am querying here is: are we to see in this House regulations establishing continuing professional development requirements, because that is how I read the word ‘regulation’? If that is the case, it is going to make it very difficult, because every time there is a change in those standards we are going to get regulation through the parliament to either disallow or allow. With all due respect, I do not think anybody here is absolutely qualified to make that test. It is a very unusual requirement if we are now as a parliament going to approve the requirements for continuing educational standards of the professions under the national registration act. Mr LUCAS: My recollection is that the medical radiation technologists are not transferring at this point in time. It is not a bad point, frankly. We would want to be very careful about what we are prescribing because I could not agree with the shadow minister more: I do not think we should be prescribing that someone will do LA 101 at 10 credit points or 20 credit points or whatever. But there might be certain basic requirements. I think that is not an unreasonable point to make. The development requirements are really important but it may be that we do not need to have them all enshrined in regulation. I take the member’s point. Mr McARDLE: On my reading of clause 67 it is mandatory. It says, ‘for a profession, are requirements, prescribed under a regulation’. It does not seem as though it is a choice. They are required to be prescribed under a regulation. That is what I am concerned about, that this parliament is going to be burdened with at least 14 professions in time to come in relation to these ever-changing requirements for educational standards. Mr LUCAS: This is not an amendment to the national law; this is an amendment to the medical radiation technologists legislation. So it is not a national law issue. I just clarify that. I will give an example that I think would be appropriate. It might say, ‘You must practise for at least X number of hours per year and undertake Y number of hours of continuing professional development in courses offered by recognised institutions.’ It does not specify what particular courses or the like. I am happy to make sure that we do not go to the nth degree of prescribing that. I think the member’s point has validity. Clause 67, as read, agreed to. Clauses 68 to 116, as read, agreed to. Clause 117— Mr McARDLE (5.47 pm): I refer to page 93 and section 202 in relation to the regulation-making power of the Governor in Council. Minister, when we discussed clause 15 I think we came to a joint conclusion that this should be used sparingly. In clause 15, there is a particular set of facts that will occur—RTI et cetera—between now and 2013. Clause 117 is wide open. It says, ‘The Governor in Council may make regulations under this act,’ and subsection (2) goes on to say that, without limiting subsection (1), a regulation may prescribe fees or provide for a maximum penalty. It may be one of those two. When you compare clause 15 with clause 117, you see that they are miles apart. Clause 15 deals with a very unique set of circumstances. It is a national scheme. Clause 117 is open-ended. The Legislation Alert has made it very clear now on many occasions that regulation-making power should only be used in the rarest of circumstances. Of course I accept that the issue of disallowance may well be a tool to be used by the opposition but, based upon the minister’s own consideration of clause 15, it would appear that clause 117 would not be warranted. 13 Apr 2010 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 1293

Mr LUCAS: No. Clause 15 relates to how we are administering the national law. Clause 117 relates to the new arrangements for pharmacies in Queensland. So they are relating to different things. I will just confirm that to be the case. That is my understanding of it. Clause 117 is in relation to amendments to the pharmacy legislation. Having said that, necessarily in relation to pharmacy matters the requirements will need to be relatively broad, because we are embarking on a business situation where Queensland Health will have to review it without the benefit of the Pharmacists Board, because the Pharmacists Board will cease to exist. For example, the proposed section recognises that we are going to have to charge fees to people to process this. It is not fair for the taxpayer to incur that. I will have that confirmed and get back to the honourable member. Mr McARDLE: I think the point I am making, though, is this: the principle in relation to the clauses is quite distinct. I accept that clause 15 deals with the national bill, and I understand that clause 117 deals with a specific act, per se, but the principle in relation to regulations should apply across-the- board. If we accept that clause 15 is there because it is a unique situation and we adopt my interpretation of the minister’s comment that it should be the exception and not the rule that regulations should be the method to amend legislation, then clause 117 does not seem to fit into that exemption. Mr LUCAS: I cannot take it any further other than to suggest that this is very specific legislation relating to not even regulation of pharmacists but regulation of pharmacists’ premises, whereby we will then undertake a review as to how we would be best placed to conduct that regulation. The honourable member has made his point. I have responded to it. I do not think I can take it much further, but it relates to this particular act, not the national law. Division: Question put—That clause 117 stand part of the bill. AYES, 47—Attwood, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Dick, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Johnstone, Jones, Kiernan, Kilburn, Lawlor, Lucas, Male, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Roberts, Robertson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Darling NOES, 36—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Pratt, Rickuss, Robinson, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Horan, Sorensen Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 117, as read, agreed to. Clauses 118 to 120, as read, agreed to. Clause 121— Mr McARDLE (5.59 pm): This particular clause deals with the Queensland Institute of Medical Research and allows a transition of power from the minister to the chief executive to approve any agreements or arrangements between the council and the state. We heard the member for Everton and the member for Aspley stand in the House this afternoon and indicate the great work that the QIMR undertakes, headed by some wonderful scientists who have delivered some wonderful outcomes— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! Member for Moggill, could you hold on a moment, please. There is too much audible conversation in the House. Honourable members, can you please take your conversations outside. Mr McARDLE: The member for Moggill? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member for Moggill. Mr Johnson: Caloundra. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry, the member for Caloundra. Mr McARDLE: We will talk later! Mr Lucas: He’s not Des Houghton’s favourite. Mr McARDLE: Don’t be cynical, Paul. Don’t be jealous. We have heard both the member for Aspley and the member for Everton speak very highly, and rightly so, of the QIMR and the great work that it does. It seems from the member for Everton’s contribution that he commented it was at the request of the QIMR, if I recall correctly, that the minister transposed his power to the chief executive, which is the director-general of the department. Given the money that is utilised by QIMR, given the scientists who are there and given the work that is undertaken and produced I would have thought it was very important for the minister to be involved in that particular facility. Am I right in my assumption that it was a request from QIMR that this occur? Is it the case that the minister believes that the workload of QIMR is such that it can be passed down to the chief executive or the DG or does he believe that he should retain that responsibility? 1294 Health Legislation (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law) A’ment Bill 13 Apr 2010

Mr LUCAS: I think it is very important that appropriate governance arrangements are in place for bodies such as QIMR. The grant moneys that are provided by the government to QIMR are provided on terms that the government determines. Members will see that there is a different mechanism for the QIMR. When we provide QIMR with money that is a different kettle of fish altogether because we do not actually have to approve anything because we are approving it when we give it to them. QIMR enters into many, many agreements—the approval of which is able to be delegated—in relation to research arrangements, research projects, organisations and staff and those sorts of things. Frankly, they are not matters that it is appropriate for the minister to be directly responsible for approving. People talk about political interference. I think this is an appropriate balance. Some might say that maybe the government should not approve anything and that QIMR should be independent of government in terms of those sorts of approvals other than government specific funding. I think it resting with the chief executive of the department is an appropriate balance. Mr McARDLE: Thank you, Minister. I take the point to an extent. What I am concerned about of course is that I would have thought that for many years now the minister would have adopted the role of approving these relevant grants and other moneys to QIMR. If that is not the case, what is the purpose of this clause? Is the purpose of this clause to move what I understand to be some of the powers that the minister has exercised to the director-general? Is it a workload issue? Mr LUCAS: No, it is an appropriate practice issue. My understanding is that it is not in relation to arrangements between the government and QIMR because they are subject to separate arrangements. Arrangements between the council and the chief executive on behalf of the state are subject to the ordinary processes. That is how they are dealt with. There are myriad arrangements and agreements that QIMR enters into with people. To then have them approved by the minister or the minister’s delegate in that instance is not, in my opinion, appropriate governance. Having said that, the whole QIMR process is subject to a broader review that we are conducting. If the honourable member wishes to participate in that I am more than happy to have him do that. Mr McARDLE: As I understand what the minister said to me, it would be true to say that until this particular bill is passed the relevant minister, the health minister in this case, would approve these arrangements or agreements including those between the council and the state. This particular clause appears to amend that to no longer require the minister to approve items except those between the council and the state. Mr LUCAS: No, I do not believe it means that. I will just take some advice in relation to that. As I indicated before, funding of QIMR—for example, the government’s funding through the budget—is subject to the approval of parliament. Those sorts of arrangements are covered in a different approval process. Whether there may be other minor ones remains to be determined. This has happened at the federal level as well. It is a question of what is the appropriate level at which things must be approved in relation to bodies such as QIMR. They are subject to an independent and very talented and competent council. If we are saying that every time they enter into an agreement with someone to do research collaboration to conduct clinical trials they need to be subject to ministerial approval then I think that is a level of bureaucracy that is not warranted. We need to bear in mind that they also use money that is not money supplied by the state. Insofar as the state provides them with money, there are processes through the budget for us to deal with those issues. Clause 121, as read, agreed to. Clauses 122 to 124, as read, agreed to. Schedule, as read, agreed to.

Third Reading Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Health) (6.08 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a third time. Question put—That the bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time.

Long Title Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Health) (6.09 pm): I move— That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to. 13 Apr 2010 Land Tax Bill 1295

LAND TAX BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 23 March (see p. 956), on motion of Mr Fraser— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (6.09 pm): It is with great anticipation that I rise to discuss the Land Tax Bill. I have been waiting for this piece of legislation to come on all afternoon and I am grateful that the health minister did not take any longer in his summing-up. I know that he was keen to get to dinner tonight, but we will press on with the Land Tax Bill. Land tax: the bane of many property owners’ lives, the bane of many tenants’ lives, the bane of this government’s life in fact—the source of much frustration and litigation. This year, for the first time ever, this Labor government will rake in over $1 billion in land tax—a record for the state of Queensland. The recent history of land tax in this state under Labor is quite simply frightening. In fact, the recent history of all taxes in Queensland under Labor is frightening. Total government revenues, including land tax, this year will exceed $37.286 billion according to the midyear fiscal and economic review which was released late last year. This is almost $100 million more than forecast in the budget for 2009-10 introduced by the Treasurer last June. The history of this government’s revenue shows that it is the biggest taxing government in the state’s history. Since 2007-08, revenue has increased from $31.4 billion to $37.286 billion this year. That is an 18 per cent increase in revenue in just three years. What does the future hold under this big-taxing Labor government? According to the midyear economic and financial review, revenue will grow to $41.275 billion by 2012-13 which is in itself an $800 million increase on last year’s original budget estimate of $40.431 billion. So we have revenue growing at an exponential rate, and the estimates of revenue growing have to be updated by almost a billion dollars in the space of six months. Queensland under Labor continues to tax, to tax and to tax again. In that period of time Queensland under Labor has also benefited enormously from Commonwealth transfers as well as the tax revenue that it gains. A review of payments made by the Commonwealth to the Queensland state government shows that in 2004-05 Queensland received an extra $380 million over what was budgeted. In 2005-06 it received an extra $771 million, in 2006-07 an extra $647 million and in 2007-08 an extra $966 million. So over that four-year period the government received transfers from the Commonwealth government alone—not taking into account additional mining royalties or transfer duties—of an extra $2.7 billion over the budgeted forecasts. It received more than it ever thought it was going to get. The rivers of gold from the federal government—both the Liberal-National coalition and the Labor Party—have swelled this government’s coffers an amount equivalent to a full year’s worth of transfer duties only two years ago. A staggering amount of income came into this state, and what happened? A government member interjected. Mr NICHOLLS: I hear the members to my left. They are finally getting the message. They finally agree with me: Queensland went bust in a boom. They were waiting for it. Those opposite went bust in a boom. They got an extra almost $3 billion and they threw it around like confetti. They threw it around like confetti in their desperate attempt to buy off sections of the population because of their bungling of the water supply situation and because of their bungling of the health situation. With all of that extra money that came in, they still got it wrong! In the year before the global financial crisis washed across our shores, we were going into a deficit. The year before the global financial crisis, this government was still running us into the red. So despite the massive increase in income received by the government over that period, its expenses have also been increasing. In fact, government expenses have been rising at a rate faster than the rate of growth in revenue, extreme as that has been. This demonstrates this government’s and its predecessor’s inability to adequately manage the state’s finances. Just after the 2005 budget Peter Beattie took over the position of Treasurer and since then the growth in expenses has exceeded the growth in revenue year on year—up until last year, when revenue was boosted by the federal government making early payment of stimulus funds to the states. Even then, the growth nearly overtook the growth in revenue—nearly overtook it! It was a close-run event. In the 2005-06 report on state finances, growth in revenue was 9.97 per cent but growth in expenses was 15.5 per cent—six percentage points higher. In 2006-07 growth in revenue was 9.51 per cent but growth in expenses was over 14 per cent. In 2007-08 there was no growth in revenue—it in fact declined by 1.47 per cent—but expenses keep growing at almost 10 per cent. In 2008-09 revenue grew 12.75 per cent, including the emergency Commonwealth stimulus transfers that were paid before they had to be spent in the subsequent financial year, and expenses still grew by 12.3 per cent—only marginally less than revenue growth but still higher than is sustainable and in breach of the government’s own new charter. Of course those opposite could not stick to the old charter, so that went 1296 Land Tax Bill 13 Apr 2010 out the window. They threw that away because they said, ‘Oh no, this is all too hard.’ They said, ‘We’ll introduce a new one,’ but they cannot even keep up with the new charter of fiscal responsibility, which calls for growth in own-purpose expenses not to exceed real per capita growth. Year on year, the Beattie-Bligh government has allowed its spending to run out of control, and that goes to the nub of the current problem. To pay for it all, there have been ever more taxes. A new petrol tax introduced, despite a promise not to, means that all businesses in Queensland and all families in Queensland are now paying more, and there has been an increase in the cost of car registration of between 17 per cent and 23 per cent depending on the size of the vehicle one owns. What role does land tax play in this government’s rapacious grab for revenue? Let me outline the land tax facts since 2004. In the year 2004-05 the total land tax take was $418 million. In 2005-06 it went up modestly to $423 million. In 2006-07 it went up to $499 million. And then the big hit: in 2007-08 it went up to $609 million. That was the monster: in 2007-08 it went from $499 million the year before to $609 million. In 2008-09 it was actually meant to be budgeted at $806 million, but it came in at $838 million—from $609 million in 2007-08 to $838 million. That is an increase of over $200 million, or more than a 30 per cent increase in land tax revenue received by the state. The rivers of gold were truly running into the Treasury’s coffers in 2007-08 and 2008-09. The facts speak for themselves. They do not lie. In 2009-10 it was $838 million. In 2009-10—in our current year—where is land tax heading? It is heading to $1.047 billion. And where does it go in the next three years? In 2010-11 it is expected to be $1.18 billion, in 2011-12 it is expected to be $1.18 billion and in 2013 it is expected to be $1.251 billion. Some $1¼ billion is the forward estimate for land tax being gouged by Labor in this state because it cannot manage finances. So in something like two years, from 2007-08 to 2008-09, Queensland property owners have had a collective 37 per cent increase in land tax amounting to $228 million, and this year land tax will increase, as I said, to over a billion dollars for the first time and it will continue to grow to $1¼ billion by 2012-13. And who is paying this land tax? A government member: Rich people! Mr NICHOLLS: Here we go—the rich people! The old class warfare comes out. You just have to let the line hang out there a little bit, and there is one out there who cannot help themselves! There is always one out there. The old class warriors are coming up. The comrades from the Left are standing up and going for it again. The envy oozes out of them. God help anyone who is successful. God help anyone who puts aside for their own future, who actually employs people, who makes investments, because the cold dead hand of the socialists over there comes out over the top and says, ‘Thank you very much.’ Mr Wettenhall interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! Member for Barron River, that is enough, please. Mr NICHOLLS: Mr Deputy Speaker, as you rightly identified, the cold dead hand of the member for Barron River comes over the top and says, ‘We won’t allow you to have the proceeds of your success, of your prudence, of your thrift, of your investment, of your risk taking. We’ll take that, comrade, and we’ll redistribute it around to everyone else because, for goodness sake, you might be rich.’ There it comes through—the philosophy of the Labor Party, the caucus room comes into the parliament—and we see truly the measure of Labor Party policy in this place and in this state. As I say, who is paying this land tax? The Treasurer, on behalf of Labor, says that this year only 19,670 resident individuals will pay land tax. But like all statistics offered up by this government, that is only part of the sorry picture of revenue being raised in this state. In fact, the total number of taxpayers— that is everyone, including small businesses and large, individuals and trustees, partnerships; as I said, everyone—will be 53,000. So, in fact, the number of taxpayers has increased. The number has increased from just over 32,000 in 2004-05 to in excess of 53,000 this year—an increase of 20,000 taxpayers, amounting to a 64 per cent increase in total. How can that be? One need look no further than the government benches. During the recent economic slowdown, when finance dried up and liquidity evaporated from the market, what did the Bligh Labor government do? It refused to revalue properties in the most volatile areas and the big council areas. So properties in Brisbane, on the Gold Coast and on the Sunshine Coast all had their valuations frozen at the peak values set in 2008—the last year of the boom, the absolute pinnacle of property values. To make things worse, the absence of the 2009 valuations, which were not carried out, worked against property owners. As the earlier and cheaper years dropped off the three-year averaging formula, property owners were caught with two years of the higher 2008 valuations. After freezing valuations at the highest rate, after refusing to revalue, what did the government do? It decided to apply a surcharge to raise an extra $93 million in revenue, because it had gone backwards so badly during the good times. Almost as contentious was the government’s decision in 2008 to alter the Valuation of Land Act to try to rip more out of property owners. Then the Court of Appeal said, ‘No, you can’t do that.’ Then we had the debacle of the Valuation of Land and Other 13 Apr 2010 Land Tax Bill 1297

Legislation Amendment Bill 2010, which was debated in this place in March. Both pieces of retrospective legislation were introduced when the government was on a hiding to nothing in its interpretation of the Valuation of Land Act as it applied to valuing property, including shopping centres. We all remember the disgraceful actions that the government took to shield itself from the operation of the law and to make sure that what it thought was the law, despite 60 years of evidence to the contrary, was passed into legislation. Many groups, including the opposition, expressed their concern about the future implications of the amendments that were proposed by the government affecting property owners in this state—the 53,000 at least who will be paying land tax. Had this ill thought through legislation passed, it would have translated into further increases in unimproved land values and made more land tax payers out of Queenslanders. So while Queensland’s land tax rates, as the Treasurer often proclaims, may be at the lower end of the range, the government ensures that the values of the land upon which land tax is calculated are among the highest. It does not matter whether your rates are low and your land values are high, or whether your rates are high and your land values are low; it is the amount of money that the taxpayer has to pay that is of consequence. That is what makes the difference between a successful business and a broke business. That is the difference between a tenant being able to survive or going broke and leaving a vacant shop. So we had almost the three-card trick attempted to be played on Queenslanders by this government. Recently, we had evidence presented to this House that land tax in Queensland is among the highest of the land tax rates and ranges applied in Australia. In other states land tax is levied at between $10 and $16 per square metre of retail space. Today in Queensland it is already $21 per square metre of retail space—between 30 per cent and 50 per cent higher than it is in other states in Australia, including New South Wales and Victoria. Unlike other taxes, land tax is levied regardless of whether there is a capacity to pay or not. That means that it does not matter whether you earn income from that property. You could hold it for a long time and have a tenant in there paying a modest rate of rent and still have to pay the increase in tax notwithstanding that you will get no revenue. You may own a holiday house for a period of time and that does not earn you sufficient income. You will still have to pay more land tax on it. Government members interjected. Mr NICHOLLS: I hear the members over there groaning because they do not like the idea of people having investment properties. They do not like the idea of people improving themselves. They do not like the idea of someone having a small shack at the beach or a small property to be able to go and relax in. They object to that type of betterment that people choose to make for themselves. They would like to rip it out of their hands and redistribute it to their brothers in the union movement. But that is the reality that many, many Queenslanders aspire to and that is the reality that the Labor Party wants to deny them. The Labor Party wants to deny people the simple benefits and the simple pleasures of being able to have a small holiday house for their families. We all remember that prior to the last election the Premier promised not to kick Queenslanders when they were down. ‘I won’t kick Queenslanders when they’re down,’ she said, and then what did she do? She wound back the big hobnailed boot and just went ‘kaboom’, as hard as she possibly could, with the petrol tax and then with the land tax and Queenslanders continue to pay the price. It is fair to assume that the vast number of these 20,000 new taxpayers over the past few years will be small businesses and small investors—people providing for their own retirement, or perhaps looking to make a start in creating their own super fund, or maybe just to own a holiday home, as I said. On average, they will be paying more as well. The average amount payable per taxpayer has increased from $12,928 in 2004-05 to $19,729 this year. So 20,000 more taxpayers are paying, on average, $7,000 more each. That is the true state of land tax in Queensland under Bligh Labor. It stands as an indictment of the big-spending nature of this government, which cannot control the growth in its own expenses and which seeks to continually squeeze the taxpayer of Queensland to finance its mismanagement. With apologies to that great communicator, former President Ronald Reagan, who famously said— Government members interjected. Mr NICHOLLS: They do not like Americans, either. That is the other thing they do not like. Time and time again the anti-American bias of the Labor Party comes through. We are getting a litany of it today. Firstly, they have a grudge against so-called rich people; secondly, they have a grudge against families who might want to own a holiday home; and, thirdly, they have a grudge against Americans. I am looking forward to the rest of this speech. I am trying to find out who else is going to be on their hit list. Obviously, I am. But who else will be there? With apologies to that great communicator, former President Ronald Reagan, who famously said, ‘We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much’, in Queensland we do not have an $84½ billion debt because we have not 1298 Land Tax Bill 13 Apr 2010 taxed enough; we have it because Labor spends too much. So the litany of abuse of the taxpayers of Queensland under Labor in terms of paying land tax is laid out for all to see, and we all know how bad it has been. Sitting suspended from 6.29 pm to 7.30 pm. Mr NICHOLLS: Just before the dinner adjournment we were having a somewhat lively debate in relation to the excesses of the Labor government, its mismanagement of the state’s funds, the fact that it sent Queensland bust in a boom and its predilection for taxing anyone who it thought was making too much of their lives by being too successful. I was concluding with the statement that was made by Ronald Reagan. He said— We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much. Reinforcing that in the state of Queensland, in Queensland we do not have an $84.5 billion debt because we have not taxed enough; we have it because Labor spends too much and shows no signs of changing its habits. The LNP will be supporting this bill. It offers belated relief to the land tax payer in Queensland. We have continuously said that land tax must strike a balance between ensuring a fair and appropriate return to the state to assist it in meeting its obligations and not being such an impost that it stifles enterprise, thrift and economic development. I have said it many times in this House and in other places: government does not create lasting prosperity, nor can it create lasting jobs; that is done best by the private sector. Lasting economic prosperity is the great benefit of a thriving private and free enterprise economy properly regulated and well managed. While those opposite may think that government knows best, the record stands in stark contrast. We cannot continue to squeeze the productive sector of the economy while growing the non- productive sector. We cannot sacrifice the private sector to the increasing monolith of the state public sector. So we welcome the provisions of this bill that do address the concerns of the private sector and the land tax payer in Queensland. The bill is a re-presentation of the existing Queensland laws pertaining to land tax. It updates the legislation with modern language and drafting practices. The bill that was first presented and passed in this place in 1915, which has undergone something in the order of 99 separate amendments and contains a variety of drafting styles and a variety of intentions, was a difficult and confusing piece of legislation. In fact, it was the antithesis of a decent revenue law. This bill contains the policy pertaining to the taxing of land. It sets out the principles behind land tax, including the basis of the assessment of liability in sections 30, 31 and 32 and, importantly, makes sure that the process of assessment and collection is included and covered by the Taxation Administration Act. The Taxation Administration Act is an act that covers other forms of state revenue raising. This legislation brings the collection of land tax into line with current revenue practice. We support the modernisation of legislation, particularly where it deals with a matter as important as revenue collection. For that reason we will be supporting the bill. We will be asking for one amendment to the bill to protect the revenue, to make sure that the state’s revenue is protected. I have circulated that amendment through the House. I will be moving an amendment to omit proposed section 58(b) of the new act. The LNP regards this section as redundant given that not-for-profit organisations already have recourse to apply for an exemption to land tax under part 6, division 2 of the bill. There is no reason this section should be duplicated. If the Queensland trade unions provide a public good, as they arguably do, then they can apply under the division for an exemption. The bill repeals and significantly recreates the operations of the act of 1915 in order to modernise the language and to make the law easier to understand. It also provides legislative enactment of the 2009-10 budget promise to provide deferred payment arrangements for land tax, a position that we wholeheartedly support. By providing for payment in instalments it allows taxpayers to more effectively manage their cash flow and to meet the demands of the ever-increasing tax burden more effectively. It continues the capping arrangements for increases in property valuations for the purposes of levying land tax in 2010-11. The provisions of the legislation are applicable for one year only. I ask the Treasurer whether he has any intention for that to be extended or whether this provision of this legislation will stand for one year only. As I have said, this bill streamlines the administration of taxation revenue collection and assessment. It also streamlines the registration for charitable institutions under the Taxation Administration Act for land tax, payroll tax and duties and makes consequential amendments to those acts. It also makes a number of consequential amendments to bills that refer to the former Land Tax Act 1915, including some more recent legislation that we have passed. The provisions of the legislation are drafted in modern language. The bill provides a clear definition of land or real property. It determines that land to be freehold land and it describes as a concept taxable land as that land which has been separated from the Crown for an estate in fee simple—that is, freehold land not subject to an exemption that is one of the exemptions set out in the latter sections of the legislation. Where one taxpayer owns a number of properties, their liability for land tax is assessed on the group of properties notionally aggregated as one, though it makes it clear how 13 Apr 2010 Land Tax Bill 1299 that aggregation of property is to work. It also makes clear the position of co-owners where there are multiple owners of property. It moves away from the more old-fashioned terminology of tenants in common or joint tenants, which for many people—perhaps those not involved in the practise of law relating to these areas or land law—might seem like an old and redundant sort of separation, but there is still a very important difference when properly understood. It refers to the term co-owners and talks about their respective interests in the fee simple—in the freehold land. It makes provision for where there are multiple co-owners. Once there are over five co-owners, the commissioner may make a determination to treat one of those owners as trustee for the other owners. The bill sets out clearly the exemptions and determines that land which is taxable land which is not exempt and that use of land which is exempt. The home of the owner or the home of the beneficiaries of the trust that holds the property is exempt. For most people, residential homes will be exempt from the operations of the Land Tax Act. Charitable institutions are listed in section 46 of the legislation. It provides exemptions for aged- care facilities which is something I think that was brought in two years ago. It provides exemptions obviously for other levels of government—Commonwealth, state and local government—or statutory authority land, except where the entity is subject to state taxation such as a government owned corporation. It exempts land used solely for the business of agriculture, pasturage or dairy farming which, of course, we certainly support. It exempts movable dwelling parks—that is, places where people tend to live in semipermanent homes where more than 50 per cent of the sites are occupied or available for long-term occupancy. It exempts port authority land, recreational and public land including land held by a not-for-profit society, club or association. It provides for retirement villages, friendly societies—it might have been retirement villages that I think were introduced recently rather than aged-care homes— and trade unions. We will be seeking to remove the exemption for trade unions. As I said, the bill deals with the payment of land tax over a period of time. The provisions themselves do not make any clear reference to it—and, again, perhaps the Treasurer might take this on board—but my understanding from reading the bill is that there are no-interest provisions for paying at the specified instalment payment intervals. So at 45, 90 and 150 days, if a person elects to take that particular course of action and pay those land tax instalments they are not paying any more land tax than they would if they had just paid it all up on its due date when they received the assessment. There are, of course, provisions in there in relation to defaults—people who elect to make the payments by instalments and fail to make those payments. It is only appropriate that the revenue be protected and that the whole amount becomes due and owing according to the assessment notice so the full tax becomes payable. Section 90 provides for the capping arrangement. That is, the value of the land for 2010-11 cannot be more than 150 per cent of the value of the land in the financial year 2009-10. Again, that is the capping arrangement that I discussed previously, and I ask the Treasurer whether there would be an extension of that, whether it is his intention that that only apply for the 2010-11 financial year or whether he contemplates some further changes in that respect. The legislation is worthwhile in the sense that, if there is to be a land tax, the legislation administering the collection of the land tax ought to be clear. It ought to be easily understood by the land tax payer. It should remove any redundancies. It should be in modern drafting language. It should clearly define the powers and responsibilities of the Commissioner of Land Tax and remove, to the extent possible, the opportunities for any capricious, if you like, decision-making process that is made and also remove any aspects of uncertainty so that there is a clear understanding by the taxpayer of their obligation to pay land tax. On that basis, as I said, we will be supporting the bill. To go back to the earlier theme of my address on this legislation, it is a pity that on coming to government the Beattie Labor government in 1998 reversed the trend that had been established by the then coalition Treasurer, , to commence reducing land tax. It was a 1995 election policy of the coalition. In 1998 Treasurer Sheldon announced a $22 million cut to land tax, in effect an 11 per cent cut to the total land tax collections forecast for that financial year. We are not saying that people ought not to pay tax; people have to pay tax. The state is entitled to expect that its citizens pay a reasonable rate for the delivery of services. What we do object to is the ever-increasing hand of government always in the pockets and the wallets of Queensland taxpayers and a lack of proper, prudent financial management to ensure that that tax is kept to as reasonable and modest a level as practically possible. Mr SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (7.41 pm): I rise to make a short contribution to the consideration of the Land Tax Bill 2010 before the House which, as the member for Clayfield and shadow Treasurer indicated, the opposition will not be opposing. Land tax is a very important part of the state revenue. The figures that are given in the explanatory notes that accompany the bill suggest that in the 2008-09 financial year land tax raised $838 million in revenue, or almost 10 per cent of the total state tax take. The shadow Treasurer has indicated that the state will collect over $1 billion in land tax in the coming year. That is a continuation of an increase in the total land tax take that has been quite extraordinary over the term of this Labor government. 1300 Land Tax Bill 13 Apr 2010

As it is when we consider every revenue bill in this House, it is tonight very relevant to look at what is one of the defining elements of this state Labor government and one of the defining shames of this state Labor government and its financial management. Despite that rising tax take that is indicated by the land tax figures, this is a government that has run Queensland into a horrific financial position. As the shadow Treasurer and the member for Clayfield outlined in some detail, land tax is not the only tax take that has increased over the term of this Labor government. The state Labor government was lucky to be elected at a period in the state’s history and in the nation’s history when the international economy was in a boom condition. Queensland, as a resources based state, was in a box seat to take advantage of that boom, which was a resources based boom by most analyses. As a resources based state, we were in a good position to take advantage of that. ‘The rivers of gold’ is the term that is often used to describe the way that the tax revenue flowed into the state’s Treasury. The whole range of state taxes was able to produce extraordinary rises in total tax take over that period—not just the land tax revenue that is the subject of this bill but also the transfer duties that are another major part of the state government’s revenue—and the income from the GST was considerably more than was ever budgeted for. The whole list of taxes was outlined by the member for Clayfield. Foremost amongst them, from my position as the shadow minister for mines and energy, should always be considered: the increase in the mining royalties that the state government was lucky enough to receive. During that time of economic boom, of great increases in those state tax revenues, this was a government that squandered the future of Queensland, that squandered that opportunity that was presented by those revenue increases. It squandered it because of its own financial mismanagement, because of its own inability to administer the affairs of the state. One of the questions that I am most often asked as a local member when I speak to groups of people is: where did all the money go? How did we get to this position in such a short period? It should come as no surprise to anybody who has observed state politics or politics generally over a period to know that Labor governments always go broke. Labor governments always squander the money. Labor governments can never financially manage their affairs. No greater example exists than the state Labor government in Queensland. History will record that there is no greater example of that truism that Labor governments always go broke than the track record of the state Labor government in Queensland. Over that period of time this government has gone broke in a boom. It has gone broke in a spectacular way—in one of the biggest economic booms in history. It has gone broke despite the fact that things like the land tax revenue have markedly increased over that period. It is one of the defining elements of this Labor government. Opposition members interjected. Mr SEENEY: Members opposite hate to be reminded of it, but reminded of it they shall be every time we consider a revenue bill in this parliament. Every time we consider the track record and the performance of this state Labor government they will be reminded of the defining element of their tenure of the government benches—that is, the extent to which they financially mismanaged this state, the extent to which they went broke in a boom. Those of us who have sat here through those years know what has happened to the revenue that has flowed from things such as land tax. It has been used to buy this government out of a series of crises. It was crisis management at its best. This government floundered from crisis to crisis to crisis and the only way those things were dealt with was by throwing money at them, by throwing Queenslanders’ money at them—the money they were getting from the land tax revenue, the money they were getting from the mining royalties, the money they were getting from the increased GST intake, the money they were getting from the transfer duty during the housing boom. It was all used to get the government out of the water crisis—a water crisis where it spent $4.5 billion on a western corridor pipeline that is contributing next to nothing to the water situation in South-East Queensland, where they spent hundreds of millions of dollars on things like the Traveston Dam, which effectively disappeared into thin air, where they spent billions of dollars on something that they euphemistically call the ‘water grid’, which does very little to solve the problems that they created by not investing in the infrastructure at the opportune time in the proper way. Because of the incompetence of this government, billions of dollars was squandered getting it out of that particular crisis. Then there was the health crisis—the health crisis that is ongoing in Queensland’s public health system, the health crisis which continues to swallow billions of dollars without producing any sort of appropriate outcome that the people of Queensland should be able to expect. It is a health crisis that remains insolvable for this state Labor government no matter how many billions of dollars it throws at it because of the entrenched culture of Queensland Health. While these revenue streams such as land tax continue to rise, the rises in revenue have been overcome by the results of the incompetent management of this Labor government. They are only two of the crises that we have seen this Labor government deal with by throwing vast amounts of money at them. There have been others. There was the power crisis, which the now health minister presided over as the minister responsible at the time. Once again, billions of dollars were thrown at it. There was the kids in care crisis, which we had to have an election to solve. That was dealt with by the now Premier, who was the minister responsible at the time, throwing millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money at the problem. 13 Apr 2010 Land Tax Bill 1301

While we consider this revenue bill tonight and while the opposition will not oppose it, as the shadow Treasurer and member for Clayfield said, we should always remember that when we impose a tax on Queenslanders the government has a responsibility to use that money wisely and to spend it effectively. This government has failed in that responsibility to an extent that no other government in Queensland’s history has been able to match. No other Labor government has gone broke in a boom in the same way and to the same extent that this government has. Mr Nicholls: And they’re still broke. Mr SEENEY: And the government is still broke, as the member for Clayfield indicates, and it will remain broke because Labor governments always go broke. No matter what the taxation revenue is that they receive, Labor governments always go broke. I turn to an examination of the whole philosophy of land tax. It, too, is something that is rooted in Labor government philosophy. It has at its base this view that somehow or other people who own land are fair game, that they should be able to pay for the excesses of others, that they should be able to pay for the excesses of incompetent governments. When the member for Clayfield, the shadow Treasurer, was speaking, we heard interjections that clearly define the philosophy that underpins this Labor government and that clearly define the philosophy that brought about the whole concept of land tax. Land tax was introduced in 1915 by a Labor government to tax the people whom it saw as being the rich. Mr Shine: The ones who can afford to pay. Mr SEENEY: They saw an opportunity to somehow take away from people those assets and those riches that they believed that they did not deserve to keep. Mr Shine: That’s fair. Mr SEENEY: As the member for Clayfield indicated, all governments have to tax. There has to be a taxation system. All governments need a revenue system to ensure that the citizens that governments represent are able to enjoy the services that governments provide. But there is a whole range of revenue-raising options that are open to governments around the world. One has to wonder why Queensland at our stage of development still has a taxation system that depends for 10 per cent of its revenue on a land tax. The last coalition government, as once again the member for Clayfield indicated, set out on a course which recognised that taxes such as land tax were outdated, they were unfair, they were innocuous and they were something that belonged in history. Because land tax contributes the revenue to the state Treasury that it does, it is impossible for any government to do away with a tax that contributes that percentage of revenue to a state government. But the last coalition government, under then Treasurer Joan Sheldon, realised that land tax as a philosophy was outdated and needed to be wound back. It set out on a course to wind back that innocuous tax and to replace it with a more modern system of revenue raising. But was has happened since Labor governments have come to power? They have deliberately set out to increase the amount of money that they have been able to raise by land tax. They have done that because their philosophy is the same philosophy that existed in 1915 when this tax was introduced. Theirs is a philosophy that says that people who own things—people who work and save and build— should be taxed because of it. There is no room in the Labor philosophy for any notion of fair and equitable taxation systems. It is not about being fair and equitable. The socialist philosophy that is inherent within this Labor government has it that you do not try to be fair and equitable about taxation; you identify who it is that has been most successful in life and you tax them. It is the spirit of envy that drives the Labor philosophy of taxation. It is not any attempt at fairness and equity; it is envy that drives the Labor socialist taxation system. There is no greater example of that than the record of the land tax revenues that this state government has enjoyed, and it has done it in a sneaky and underhanded way. It has not set out to be honest about it and raise the rate that the land tax is levied at. It has set out to ensure that the land tax base—the values that are used for the levying of land tax, the so-called unimproved land values—is inflated to levels which bear no resemblance to what they were 10 or 12 years ago when this Labor government came to power. Every time landholders across the state receive their valuation notices they are bewildered and shocked at the extent to which the unimproved value of their land has increased. They often ask why. How can this be? Why is it that the unimproved value seems to have increased at a much faster rate than the market value? I would suggest that it has been a very deliberate strategy on the part of this government to ensure that the unimproved land values are kept as high as possible to ensure that the land tax base is there to provide the greatest amount of revenue for the state Treasury. That was well and truly illustrated by legislation that we passed through this House in very recent times. That strategy of increasing the unimproved land value—of getting the base upon which land tax is levied as high as possible—was exposed for all to see in the legislation that was introduced into this parliament. When that strategy was well and truly made clear and because of the public reaction by the Property Council and other representative bodies that represent landholders, that legislation was not withdrawn but it was subsequently so severely amended that it was only a shadow of its former self when we debated it. 1302 Land Tax Bill 13 Apr 2010

It behoves Queenslanders to recognise the extent to which this Labor government has wasted their money. It is an essential element of any government’s administration to raise money. But state governments have to move towards systems of taxation that are fair, systems of taxation that ensure that as much as possible the people who benefit from the services are those who pay. I do not believe that land tax is a fair and equitable tax in the Queensland economy in 2010. I believe that state governments should follow the agenda that was set by Joan Sheldon and the former coalition government and move to ensure that other methods of taxation are developed to achieve that fairness and equity that land tax does not achieve. Mr Shine: Such as? Mr SEENEY: As the member for Toowoomba North continues to say in his interjections, he believes that somehow or other it is only the rich people who pay land tax. Mr SHINE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The honourable member’s comments are not only untrue but they are highly offensive and I ask him to withdraw them. Mr SEENEY: I withdraw. However, it is obvious to everyone who sat in this chamber tonight and listened to this debate that the philosophy which the member for Toowoomba North seeks to deny is well entrenched in the Labor government. It is well entrenched in the administration that has sought to increase the amount of land tax that it takes from Queensland landholders because it believes that is a legitimate source of income to buy its way out of the administration foul-ups that have caused crisis after crisis after crisis. While we will not be opposing this bill before the House tonight, I think it is a responsible course of action for this parliament to reflect on the financial management record of this state Labor government. It is something that every Queenslander should be aware of. It is good that the legislation seeks to modernise the legislation that controls the collection of land tax, but it would be better if there were legislation in this House that sought to modernise the whole revenue-raising system of this state Labor government to make sure it was fair and equitable. It would be even better if this state Labor government accepted its responsibility to deal with the revenue so raised in a responsible way on behalf of the people of Queensland. That is something that this state Labor government has not been able to do in the 12 years that it has occupied the government benches, and the record in that respect is undeniable. I believe the people of Queensland can have no confidence that this state Labor government will do that in the future, no matter how it raises revenue, no matter how much of that revenue is derived from land tax, and no matter how much of it is derived from other revenue sources that are available to this state Labor government. It will always be bound by that old truism that Labor governments always go broke. This Labor government has gone broke in a more spectacular fashion and in better economic times than any other Labor government in Queensland’s history. Ms GRACE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (8.01 pm): I rise to support the Land Tax Bill 2010 and to make a brief contribution to the debate. I start by thanking the constituents who have contacted my office regarding land tax and valuations. I assure them on the Hansard record that I understand their issues, having lived inner city all my life and having an understanding that the value of land has increased quite substantially over recent times. I put on record how much I value and respect their views in relation to this issue. I welcome all input from constituents in regard to the land tax debate. I also assure them that the issues they have raised have been passed on. I have made our side of politics very much aware of their issues. That is why I am speaking tonight on this bill to welcome its introduction. It was good tonight to hear early in the debate from the member for Clayfield. It was good to see the old Liberal Party was back—the bastion of free enterprise which measures someone’s success not by their contribution to the community but by the wealth that they have created. That is not to say that this side of the House does not necessarily agree that someone’s success can be measured by their wealth, their holiday home and their investment properties, but we also believe that someone’s success can be measured in other ways. I guess that is what differentiates that side of the House from this side of the House. We value a worker’s contribution to the community and other people’s contributions that they make during their life even though they may not die wealthy with a holiday home up or down the coast. No sooner did we hear that the good old Liberal Party was back than we heard from the member for Callide, and we knew that the old National Party was back. We heard the same old rhetoric. He had a go at the Labor Party about socialist principles and we heard the same old carping, but then he decided that they were going to support this bill. Once again, there is a policy vacuum. There is not one alternative idea. There is not one suggestion about what they may or may not do in regard to the land tax situation. We know—and at the end of the day we know that they, too, know—that this bill is a good bill. That side of the House has already indicated that. Mr Seeney: I said it three times. You weren’t listening. Ms GRACE: The member for Callide might be interjecting, but he did say that he would be supporting the bill, so he sees the merits of the bill as well. 13 Apr 2010 Land Tax Bill 1303

The Land Tax Bill repeals and replaces the Land Tax Act 1915 but retains its policy and a number of features of benefit to taxpayers. For example, the system of averaging of land values which was introduced in 1996 is going to be retained. Land tax is levied based on the unimproved value of the land, as we have heard. When the unimproved values for a particular parcel of land for the current year and the two preceding years are available, the lesser of the average value and the current year value will be used to calculate the land tax liability. When unimproved values are not available for these three years, the state-wide averaging factor will be used to determine the value used to calculate land tax. Averaging protects land tax payers against significant increases in land tax values between one year and the next, and allows taxpayers to plan and manage their affairs more effectively. No-one can dispute that in the last decade or so the average land value in the inner city, particularly in the electorate that I represent, has gone up enormously. Many people have benefited from those values. There have been a number of amendments to the land tax regime in Queensland which have been made to benefit those taxpayers during the tenure of both the Beattie and the Bligh governments. Prior to 1 July 2005, there was a system of rebates that reduced a taxpayer’s land tax liability where their relevant land holdings were below a certain value. In 2002 the government legislated to increase that rebate threshold for companies, trustees and absentees from $100,000 to $150,000. In 2003 the deduction threshold for natural persons increased from around $276,000 and for companies, trustees and absentees to $170,000. So we have been increasing those thresholds as the value of land has risen. In 2005 land tax rates underwent more significant reform. The old system of rebates was replaced by two separate rate scales—one for companies, trustees and absentees, and another for resident individuals. Upon introduction, no land tax was payable where relevant land holdings were less than $300,000 for the former and $450,000 for the latter. In 2006 once again the thresholds at which resident individuals pay land tax was increased from $450,000 to $500,000, and again in 2007 in recognition of those increases to $600,000. Also in 2007 the government legislated to increase the threshold for companies, trustees and absentees from $300,000 to $350,000. To further protect land tax payers from large increases in unimproved land values from one year to the next, a 50 per cent cap on the annual increase in land values used for the purposes of calculating land tax liability was introduced from 1 July 2007. It was to apply in the financial year commencing on that date and in the two subsequent financial years. This bill extends value capping for land tax purposes to the financial year commencing 1 July 2010, and I welcome that extension. That extension as well as the extended payment option which will be available from 2010-11 onwards, as announced in the 2009-10 state budget, will greatly assist land tax payers. Land tax payers will have the option of paying land tax by either a single payment, if they are able to do that, within 90 days of assessment issue or in three equal instalments within 45, 90 and 150 days of assessment issue. I believe this will be beneficial to many of my constituents who may struggle to pay in one lump sum and who may take advantage of paying in instalments which might coincide better with their cash flow. I understand the many issues raised with me regarding the payment of land tax, particularly, as I have said, in a fast-growing electorate where land values have risen beyond many expectations in recent years. These amendments aim to ease the burden on those required to pay land tax and to ensure an easier method of payment—by instalments—is introduced as outlined and promised in last year’s state budget. I welcome the amendments in the Land Tax Bill. I welcome all the different changes we have made keeping pace with the rate of the growth in the value of land, particularly in the inner city, as the representative for Brisbane Central. I commend this bill to the House. Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—LNP) (8.09 pm): As the shadow minister has stated, this is a rewrite of the Land Tax Act, which dates back to 1915. Incidentally, this date is significant to Labor for it is the time when Labor under TJ Ryan achieved government in its own right. Land tax was seen as something critical to the Labor constituency. Mr Shine: You’re a fan of Ryan. Dr DOUGLAS: This will be interesting to the member for Toowoomba North. It might correct some of his misbeliefs and lead him to have a re-look at history. For those even moderately interested in the history of this, the Great War was draining our finances, earlier drought had destroyed many on the land and losses of our young men were impossibly high and unsustainable. Labor opposed conscription as did Ryan, but the demand for soldiers was crippling the state’s economy. Our state’s Treasury was moderately flush but in decline. As Labor embarked on a massive spending plan, the debt at that stage was £11 million with £2 million cash in the bank. Within 15 years the debt was £130 million. This was in spite of the introduction of new taxes, a recovering society and the roaring twenties economy. Land tax as proposed under the original formula represented a method of taxing improvement that would benefit a landholder by capital expenditure by multiple sources external to that property. It was not a tax on improvement to that individual property. In theory, land tax is an inefficient output tax that is taxed as an additional charge. The theoretical benefit is 1304 Land Tax Bill 13 Apr 2010 and was to reduce and stop land banking. Without land tax it is arguable that land banking would rapidly grow because other than holding charges for borrowing capital that is tax deductible in some cases— that is, for companies and trusts—and low-level rates there is no other large capital expenditure required. This argument is currently driving some of this government’s justification not only for maintaining the tax but also for the recent government attempts to significantly increase it. The SEQ plan compounds the problem by severely restricting available land for housing and demanding much higher density infill development. The fault with the original government proposal was that it represented a new enterprise tax pretending to be a land tax. Fortunately, 60 amendments later we had changes that the industry and public would accept. Interestingly, since 1915 this legislation has had 99 changes. This bill is a rewrite of law and practice and correctly, as the Treasurer states, sees the retention of the existing land tax base policy and tax rates. The proposed benefits are good. The capping arrangements of 150 per cent of the value applying to the prior years, 2009 and 2010, are extended to 2010 and 2011. There is an extended payment option system with either a single payment option at 90 days after the assessment issue or three equal instalments at 45, 90 and 150 days. This has a significant benefit for the cash flow and funding stream of those assessed, particularly when money is tight. In part, these changes represent some form of redress that the public who pay these taxes have against this tax. We all pay land tax irrespective of whether or not we hold property since nearly all superannuation funds hold property as part of a balanced group of investments, and all states charge land tax. The argument constantly raised is that only two per cent of people pay land tax directly and 98 per cent pay it indirectly. Therefore, the tax is no different to a fixed yearly levy on the state’s residents and obviously the government exempts itself. That is a negative tax because it does not raise a compound benefit for the raising of the tax. The compliance cost is a compounding negative. The economics of this imply that the removal of this cash from that circulating in the economy returns capital back to a government that is unable to gain the same multiplier effect of that capital. At a time when banks are demanding greater equity in any investment from housing through to commercial development we are withdrawing cash from the investment before that same investment has a chance to yield. As I have said, the tax does have a logic but it must be applied correctly so as to enhance its desired effects. It has to be part of a much wider model and there has to be a methodical approach to its implementation. When it was implemented its justification by the then Treasurer Ted Theodore was that Queensland was the only state that did not have it, and the New Zealand model was thought to be good. It was, as I have indicated, Labor Party policy. Theodore also stated, ‘The state, the governments of course, have been faced with the necessity of finding additional revenue.’ That comes from his second reading speech on 23 November 1915. He followed on with the statement, ‘The principle of taxation— Mr Schwarten interjected. Dr DOUGLAS: Just listen to this before you start making statements. You might read it later on. I have it all here for you. He stated— The principle of taxation of land values has the effect—the incontestable effect—of destroying or tending destruction of private monopolies and land. All land under this system is used. To correctly analyse the situation one needs to understand that then agricultural land was to be taxed yet the vast bulk of rural land was being held in three ways. There were absentee owners, single large tract owners and family holdings. Now this situation does not exist in the same fashion since the lands are being used when agricultural owners hold them. Agricultural lands are not taxed under the land tax, as has been clearly stated. Mining companies and land developers are taxed when the purpose is not agricultural. They hold large tracts of land. The then Treasurer’s view was that not only did it discourage the aggregation of large estates but it also made it unprofitable to hold land for speculative purposes. He thought the major knock-on effect was going to be in our cities—‘Queen and George streets whose value runs to many thousands of pounds’, he was quoted as saying. Here is the crucial failing of the argument. The inevitable result of a land tax will be to reduce the price of land and it will do away with land speculation because it will make it unprofitable. Clearly, he was only proposing to tax freehold properties. He believed that the actions would deliver the compounding results that conformed to the Adam Smith principles. It did not do so. Ninety-five years later we have a system that looks very much the same, but this remake will make it easier to read and understand. That is merely all it will do. As the shadow minister has stated, the land tax returns as a quantum have continued to a point now of $1.04 billion. They will be $1.251 billion in 2013. There has been no diminution in the uplift of the tax as a percentage in the last 10 years. This nonsense of a GFC, nonrecession, is totally disproven by evidence since this is a 10 per cent tax and is representative of the capacity of the system to raise income. This tax is paid by all of us. It is a state levy on all of us. Some members either fail to 13 Apr 2010 Land Tax Bill 1305 acknowledge it for political reasons or deny the reality since we have near doubled the number of people who pay it. It is 64 per cent and within 12 months it should reach 90 per cent. We all pay it. In other words, this two per cent becomes 100 per cent. I can only but agree with the failed Labor argument tonight raised by the member for Clayfield. When the state accumulated debt was rising and was hitting $64 billion the state froze land valuations in an attempt to maintain land tax income, but the purpose of land tax is to reduce land speculation, according to Labor philosophy. It was land speculation we needed to drive the property values when they were plunging in the real market. In other words, you killed the goose that laid the golden egg at the time you could have changed it. Correctly, the member for Clayfield stated that the true intention of land tax is purely a revenue driver in an effort to maintain the budget bottom line when income is falling. It had a three per cent uplift when government expenditure was accelerating ahead of revenue—income in the face of rising interest on debt and a failure to grow the budget income at a pace with expenditure. That was what was going on. Irrespective of statements regarding numbers of outcomes across all department areas, we were not basically responding to the issue—that is, expenditure commensurate with income. In business this is a failure to manage. Land tax demonstrates a fundamental failing of business administration. It reveals a desperation for income when all else fails. Theodore’s advantage in 1915 was a new all- encompassing tax when personal income tax was relatively low and new. His debt, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the size of his budget, which was £111 million, was 10 per cent. He had a lot more to play with. Property speculation and effective land banking were a reality at the time. These are not issues now and land banking may only be in part occurring because real property values have declined by as much as 100 per cent and most people’s equity position has reduced to zero or negative values. True wealth has been lost. The mining boom, the energy boom and the weight of superannuation capital inflows week by week are driving the market to new heights. But we are all oblivious to what is really going on in the suburbs. Real wealth is lost, income is down and rising interest rates are consuming the public’s ability to spend for essentials, let alone discretionary income. There is, in effect, two economic worlds out there and there is no impact on debt, particularly where unpaid debt in Queensland has risen to 100 per cent over state revenue. Effectively, in the suburbs this has a knock-on effect where they have a 30 per cent loss of their net income which means they have to live on a subsistence income. It is hard to adjust to a market that is not growing. It is hard to understand that the growth is not there when the population is rising. However, this land tax debate really tells us a lot about what is going on. It says a lot about a government that has run out of ideas and has considered selling the silverware and wedding presents when it all gets too tough. I put it to Labor members that to understand party philosophy, they should read the history of the tax and they should read the speeches about the reasons behind it. They should not underestimate the clarity of the mind of TJ Ryan, the determination and pragmatism of Ted Theodore and the mere fact that only 95 years has gone by. This bill is a rewrite. The land tax debate was a seminal moment for Labor in Queensland. Those opposite have collectively failed to read and understand their own history. If they were true to their roots, they would have reduced the tax to stimulate property speculation to at least maintain real property values and force the banks to follow on with their guarantees, because they had nothing to lose and the public was paying for it anyway. They chose the weaker option, the class enemy and the uninformed path. They chose not to read their own history. It is hard to come back from this. As Theodore prophetically said in 1915 in his original speech— It will have the effect of depreciating land values. How true a statement he made, and it has done so. The Labor government has driven the values down. For the information of members, the issues contained in these speeches are available from the Parliamentary Library just next to the librarian’s desk. We support the bill as a rewrite because it is an attempt to modernise revenue collection. But it is truly a case of how fiddling at the edges can give rise to such dreadful unintended consequences. I want to quote Mr Tolmie, the shadow Treasurer at the time who actually spoke against the land tax after the schedule had been presented. He said— ... I cannot see my way to support this form of taxation. I believe in an income tax, because a man has a right to pay something for the purpose of maintaining the institutions of the country in which he is living, and which gives him protection. Every man is in duty bound to do something for the State in which he is living, but that duty is incumbent not on one section only but on all sections. A man ought to pay in proportion to the benefit he is receiving, which is shown by his income. Mr Tolmie said this when he knew that the state debt was less than 10 per cent of the state budget. However, when interest rates were nine per cent because of the war, he feared the impact of compounding interest on the state. He was a careful man. He thought dearly about the state and he thought that we needed to spend money that was carefully raised from the public because we never knew what was around the corner. I think we ought to think about that in this time, particularly as our 1306 Land Tax Bill 13 Apr 2010 debt has hit $84 billion. We could suddenly be facing a situation where things could be terribly worse and we need to be careful. The Land Tax Bill tells us a lot about where we have been and a lot about where we are going. Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—LNP) (8.24 pm): I am happy to rise to speak to the Land Tax Bill 2010 and to endorse the comments and the analysis that the shadow minister, the member for Clayfield, made. I endorse the primary focus of this bill, and that is the modernising of the legislative language that it contains which will make this law easier to understand. This general premise is definitely welcomed to ensure that those who are required to work with this legislation can do so with additional and improved clarity and confidence. One could say it is a demystification of the legislation and it will no doubt save time, cost and effort in achieving the respective outcome that this legislation intends to achieve. There are several other initiatives that are contained in this bill that will add to what was contained in the former Land Tax Act 1915. For example, some of these changes and alterations include that the registration process for charitable institutions under the Taxation Administration Act 2001 will be streamlined. This will assist in the areas of land tax, payroll tax and duties and will also make consequential amendments to those acts. Another aspect within this bill is the provision for legislative enactment of the 2009-10 budget promise to provide deferred payment arrangements for land tax. There is also the continuation of the capping arrangements for increases in property valuations for the purposes of levying these particular land taxes. There is a minor additional change that could have a positive bearing for some constituents—that is, allowing families to have two allowable lettings on their land without incurring land tax. There have been, and inevitably will remain, occasions where this will assist with family situations. This will mean that two allowable lettings will be permissible if at least one of the lettings is a family letting and the total floor area of the leased areas for the lettings is not more than 50 per cent of the total floor area of all residential areas on the land. An allowable letting is a family letting if the occupant is a member of the principal resident’s family. Amongst some of the other amendments are amendments relating to payment arrangements for land tax. Prior to this bill land tax was generally levied and required payment within 60 days, with a possible extension of 90 days on a special request. With this bill comes an extended payment option allowing taxpayers to choose to pay their land tax assessment in three equal instalments due at 45, 90 and 150 days. It is noted that these extended payment options will only relate to payments made by direct debit, but I do add that this is an improvement and certainly a lesser impost on businesspeople. These payments no doubt would have to be received on or before the instalment due date or the balance would revert to becoming payable again as a lump sum. If the extended payment option is not chosen, assessments will be payable within 90 days of the assessment. As I previously mentioned, there will be the capping of taxable value of land under VOLA, the Valuation of Land Act 1944, from the financial year 2009-10 to the financial year 2010-11. As I said, the taxable value of land will be capped so that the value of the land for the 2010-11 financial year cannot exceed more than 150 per cent of the value of the land in the 2009-10 financial year. The subject of land tax is one that has relevance to all of our respective electorates and it has relevance to many of our constituents. Certainly the Burdekin electorate, which I am always very proud to represent, is no different. I know that land tax affects many of my constituents. In recent weeks I have been advised directly and indirectly of constituent concerns regarding land valuation hikes. When land valuations go up, it causes a very genuine fear that it will result in local government rate hikes and make many subject to a higher land tax liability. The increase in land valuations is causing a lot of concern among my constituents and I know that it is concerning a lot of other people across Queensland, because they are very wary of this government’s propensity to milk as much as they can from those whom they perceive as capable of paying. These people are concerned that the state government has not invested wisely in the boom times and that they will be required to bail this government out of its financial mismanagement by paying higher land taxes. There is genuine concern among those constituents who have recently received advice of inordinately higher land valuations. I have no doubt that these higher land valuations affect people in many areas. As we know, land valuations are fundamental in terms of calculating local rates, and rural landholders in the northern part of my electorate in particular appear to have been targeted. I am aware of some examples in Barringha in the northern part of my electorate. One land valuation in that area has increased by 172 per cent. In nearby Majors Creek, there are cases where there has been an increase in land valuation of 230 per cent. Having said that, I am aware of the land tax capping of taxable value, which was mentioned earlier. However, these are huge increases in land valuation. I note, though, that land used for primary production still attracts an exemption, provided it is used solely for the business of agricultural pasturage or dairy farming. The land is exempt under specific conditions, that is, if it is owned by an individual or other specified people. Primary production land as well as land owned by various other entities will attract the same exemptions as under the previous legislation. There are already provisions and arrangements in this bill for bona fide not-for-profit firms as well as various other entities, such as aged-care facilities, 13 Apr 2010 Land Tax Bill 1307 government land, moveable dwelling parks, port authority land, retirement villages and recreational and public land. However, I wonder why in clause 58 of this Land Tax Bill there is an exemption of land tax to trade unions. The clause states— Land owned by, or held in trust for, a trade union, if the land is not used to carry on a business for profit. To provide a blanket exemption from land tax to trade unions sends a very clear signal of this state government’s allegiances. There are already provisions and arrangements for bona fide not-for- profit firms. Trade unions should not be given an overt leg-up ahead of the many other charitable and not-for-profit organisations. Historically, land tax was brought in by a Labor government. The member for Callide outlined that history very clearly. Land tax is regarded by this socialist government as a tax on the so-called rich—a tax on the people who are creating any wealth that this state produces. Land tax and payroll tax are a socialist government’s way of trying to get its tentacles into the wealth of those businesspeople who have kept this state afloat. This is the government that says that the global financial crisis has caused it to go broke. The people of Queensland do not accept that argument any longer. This government was $65 billion in debt before the GFC and since then it has effectively racked up heaps more debt—at least another $20 billion of debt since then. So, in effect, we now see the government saying, ‘Let’s get the big end of town. Let’s push up this wealth tax. Let’s get the most we can from them.’ There is no thought for the businesspeople who will suffer—the small business people, the mum-and-dad businesspeople who are working very hard and who are trying to build up their businesses. This is not a fair tax. Small businesses will suffer. Job losses will result. Encouraging private enterprise will encourage job creation. But this government has absolutely no idea of wealth creation or the encouragement of wealth creation. Prior to the 2009 election we heard the Treasurer say that he would rule out any increase in state taxes. But land tax will increase, even though the land tax rate may remain constant. The increased valuation of land that has resulted from legislation that was brought into this House previously is going to bring about a massive increase in taxes that will be to the detriment of the Queensland business sector. Businesses in Queensland are facing increasingly tough times and imposts such as land tax and payroll tax make their tasks so much harder. Mr RYAN (Morayfield—ALP) (8.36 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Land Tax Bill. This bill is about modernising and simplifying land tax legislation for Queensland. The bill does not change tax rates. The bill does not introduce any major policy change about how the land tax regime operates in Queensland. This bill merely introduces a number of beneficial arrangements, maintains a number of exemptions, strengthens the antiavoidance provisions and completes the program of modernisation that commenced last year. I have said in this place before that it will come as no surprise to the House that the provision of public services and public infrastructure is funded through a budget process that is funded by public funds. The way in which those public funds are collected must be transparent, fair and accountable and must reflect taxation burden priorities. It is important for taxation burden priorities to be clear and steps taken to preserve those priorities. There is only one bucket of money. The way we fill that bucket of money depends on the relative priorities of the government. One view in respect of taxation burdens is the ability-to-pay taxation theory. This theory says that taxation is levied on taxpayers proportionate to the taxpayers’ ability or capacity to pay for taxation. The Land Tax Act 1915 and its proposed replacement, the Land Tax Bill 2010, embody this theory. But tonight we have heard from the opposition members their objections to the proposition of a land tax regime. We heard their objections on behalf of the more well-off to an ability-to-pay taxation theory. But by squawking as they do, by crying poor for those who are more well-off, they are really saying that they want the less well-off to pay more. They want to tax the poor more at the expense of the more well-off. I am proud to say that this state government will not do that. This state government is very conscious of the financial pressures on families and the less well-off and it will support them where it can whilst maintaining a taxation system that can appropriately fund the provision of public services and public infrastructure for the greater good of our communities. However, this bill is also characterised by this Labor state government’s Toward Q2 goal of creating fair communities. In my view, there is no better way to create a fair society for Queenslanders in respect of taxation burdens than through the maintenance of a land tax regime based on the ability-to- pay taxation theory. I note that this bill continues and extends the capping arrangement for the 2010-11 financial year. This capping arrangement protects affected property owners from excessive land tax rises based on significant land valuation increases. I also note that this bill introduces the new extended payment option announced in last year’s state budget for land tax payments. Taxpayers will welcome the choice to pay their respective land tax obligations as a single payment or in three equal instalments. I also note that this bill continues the exemption for land tax liability for property owners in respect of their principal place of residence, for charitable organisations using the land for an exempt purpose, for aged-care facilities, for government 1308 Land Tax Bill 13 Apr 2010 owned land, for land used for primary production—for certain owners—for land used as a movable dwelling park, for port authority land, for recreational and public land and for land used for retirement villages. If we look closely at the nature of these exemptions we see a clear example of how this bill supports the concept of fair communities. By providing these exemptions, this bill effectively supports owner occupiers, primary producers, charitable institutions and vulnerable people in their day-to-day lives. For example, this bill means that generally residents of aged-care facilities, retirement villages and movable dwelling parks are protected from land tax related cost increases because the land on which those facilities are located is exempt from land tax. This bill also supports fair communities by introducing new, modern, strong and robust anti- avoidance provisions. These provisions are designed to deter efforts by those who would ordinarily have a land tax liability from avoiding that land tax liability. People who cheat the system by avoiding a land tax liability are cheating Queensland and Queenslanders. A fair community is a community where people respect and fulfil their obligations and those obligations include payment of land tax liabilities. Finally, this bill continues the state government’s hard work of modernising legislation to ensure it is, where possible, written in plain English, is clear and understandable. Surely the modernisation of important legislation not only makes legislation easier to access and understand but also generally enhances the legal framework for Queensland. This is a good bill which not only supports this state government’s vision for a fair Queensland but also introduces some beneficial measures and some tough anti-avoidance provisions. I commend the Treasurer, his staff, his departmental staff and the Parliamentary Counsel for their hard work in respect of this bill and I commend the bill to the House. Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (8.42 pm): Tonight I rise to make a short contribution to the Land Tax Bill 2010 introduced into this House by the Treasurer. The objectives of the bill are to rewrite the provisions of the Land Tax Act 1915 from 30 June 2010, introduce extended payment arrangements for land tax and provide a cap on the increase in value on which land tax is assessed for the 2010-11 financial year. The bill also seeks to amend the Taxation Administration Act 2001 and to make consequential changes to the Duties Act 2001 and Payroll Tax Act 1971 to introduce a single registration for charitable institutions that will apply for land tax, payroll tax and duty tax streams and make consequential changes to a number of other bills. The Land Tax Act 1915 imposes land tax on the value of a taxpayer’s total holdings at 30 June in each financial year. Land values are determined by the chief executive of the Department of Environment and Resource Management under the Valuation of Land Act 1944. In the 2008-09 financial year land tax raised $838 million in revenue, representing 9.44 per cent of the $8.877 billion collected in state taxes. Many of the core taxing and exemption provisions for land tax have been in the Land Tax Act since it was enacted in 1915 and have subsequently been amended numerous times. As a result, the legislation reflects inconsistent and outdated drafting practices, lacks a coherent structure and is difficult for taxpayers to understand. The bill rewrites the Land Tax Act 1915 to overcome these deficiencies. It simplifies the existing legislation by use of restructuring and plain English. The changes made will benefit taxpayers by promoting clarity and transparency in the legislation and its administration. As there are no changes to tax rates, exemptions or concessions or significant policy changes proposed in this rewrite, the rewrite itself retains Queensland’s current land tax revenue base. The provisions that trade unions should be exempt from the provisions of this bill are, unfortunately, yet another deal for Labor mates. There is no fair reason trade unions specifically should receive an exemption when other arrangements for not-for-profit firms already exist. Various tax systems grant a tax exemption to certain organisations, persons, income, property or other items taxable under the system. Such status may provide a potential taxpayer complete relief from tax, tax of a reduced rate or tax on only a proportion of the item subject to tax. Examples include exemptions of charitable organisations from property taxes and income taxes, exemptions provided to veterans and exemptions under cross border or multijurisdictional principles. Tax exemption generally refers to a statutory exemption to a general rule rather than the mere absence of taxation in a particular circumstance. Tax exemption also generally refers to removal from taxation of a particular item or class rather than a reduction of taxable items by way of deductions of other items. Tax exemptions may theoretically be granted at any governmental level that imposes taxation, though in some broader systems restraints are imposed on such exemptions by lower tier governmental units. David Russell QC on trade union reform in a report titled Trade union reform—trade unions: privileges and power states— As will be seen from what has gone before, trade unions in Australia, as participants in a market for goods and services and as major commercial organisations, stand in a very different position from other participants in the market and such organisations. They can carry on businesses and profitably dispose of property without liability to tax on the gains. There exist some disincentives to proceedings in the ordinary courts for conduct which, if engaged in by any other person, would plainly be unlawful and proposals are currently in train for that exemption to be widened. They are not as accountable to their members, or to creditors, in relation to their dealings with their assets, and far from discouraging monopolisation, the law encourages it. 13 Apr 2010 Land Tax Bill 1309

It is, of course, for others to judge whether or not this situation serves a discernible public interest but in the face of these privileges it is hardly a matter for surprise that Mr Justice Higgins could speak of the unions and their Governments as ‘those above us’ in the exchange which led to the adoption of this Society’s name. The LNP will support this bill on the basis that it simplifies the revenue administration of the Queensland government. However, the shadow Treasurer will be moving an amendment to omit section 58(b) on the grounds that the section gives an exemption from land tax to trade unions. Mr CRANDON (Coomera—LNP) (8.46 pm): I rise to add to the debate on the Land Tax Bill 2010. This bill repeals and broadly re-creates the operation of the Land Tax Act 1915 with a view to modernising the legislative language and making the law easier to understand. The bill also provides legislative enactment of the 2010 budget promise to provide deferred payment arrangements for land tax and continues the capping arrangements for the purpose of levying land tax. Among other things, it makes consequential amendments to other bills that reference the former Land Tax Act 1915. There is one minor change and that is to allow families to have two allowable family lettings on land without incurring land tax. In Queensland the demarcation of property ownership rights is between freehold and leasehold land. Government members would have us believe that our farmers have nothing to fear from the increase in land values or leasehold land. Indeed, the member for Keppel has implied in this House, when referring to use for rural purposes by farmers using leasehold land, that revaluations have no effect on costs to the farmer. Other government members have implied the same thing. This is not correct. The fact is that valuations for these leaseholders do have an effect on costs to the farmer using leasehold land. Land for rural purposes makes up more than 70 per cent of rural land used in Queensland and the increase in valuations affects the rates and rent paid by these rural leaseholders. Indeed, there is a thriving business in Queensland in disputing the valuations for leasehold land with a view to reducing these not insignificant costs. To say that our farmers have nothing to fear from revaluations of land for land tax purposes is simply wrong. Although the bill before us refers to exemptions applying to land uses, such as the home of the owner under certain circumstances, certain charitable institutions, aged- care facilities and land used solely for the business of agriculture, pasturage or dairy farming among other exemptions, it is not entirely accurate. Prior to this bill land tax was generally levied and required to be paid within 60 days with a possible extension of 90 days on special request. The extended payment option allows taxpayers to choose to pay their land tax assessment in three equal instalments due at 45, 90 and 150 days—in other words, a third, a third, a third. The first third is arguably 45 days earlier, the second third is due on the due date and the third and final tranche is due 60 days later. On average, there has been a small benefit to the taxpayer of an additional 15 days on the final third. It is noted that the extended payment option will only apply to payments made by direct debit. Payments must be received on or before the instalment dates or else the balance will become payable, once again, as a lump sum. I note that if the extended payment is not chosen assessments will be payable within 90 days of the assessment. Failure to meet an instalment means that the full tax is payable on the later of two dates: the original payment date or the failed instalment date and interest is charged from then on. An increase in the taxable value of land is capped so that the value of land in the full year 2010-11 cannot be more than 150 per cent of the value of the land in the full year 2009-10. The LNP supports this bill on the basis that it simplifies the revenue administration of the Queensland government. The shadow Treasurer will be moving an amendment to omit proposed section 58(b) on the grounds that the section gives to trade unions an exemption to land tax. There is no fair reason trade unions specifically should receive an exemption when other arrangements for not-for- profit organisations already exist. With this comment, I commend the bill to the House. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (8.50 pm): I rise to speak briefly in support of the Land Tax Bill 2010, which makes minor policy changes while simplifying and modernising the legislation. Land tax is an annual tax levied on the unimproved value of freehold land owned in Queensland as at midnight on 30 June each year. Land tax is calculated using valuations determined by the Department of Environment and Resource Management. These valuations reflect market forces with the result that any adjustment of the unimproved value of land will result in a consequential change to the amount of land tax payable. States must raise revenue through the limited means available to them to finance services demanded by the community. The other side of this is something that governments must also be mindful of, which is reducing the flow-on effects of significant increased land valuations for taxpayers. This bill takes into account what I have just said in a number of ways, firstly, through the Land Tax Act 1915 capping arrangements of the three financial years ending 2009-10. The capping ensured that the value of land for land tax purposes was capped at 150 per cent of the previous year’s value. The bill extends the cap to the 2010-11 year. Secondly, until 2009-10 land tax was payable within 30 days of the assessment issued. Then in 2009-10, a 90-day payment period applied. This bill will extend the payment option from 2010-11 onwards. This will include the option of paying land tax within 90 days or in three equal instalments due within 45, 90 and 150 days of assessment issue, allowing land tax payers to manage their financial arrangements better by spreading out payments. 1310 Land Tax Bill 13 Apr 2010

The Land Tax Act has been amended many times since it was enacted in 1915 and this has resulted in legislation that is outdated in terms of drafting practices. A comment that is often heard is that the bill is difficult for land tax payers to understand. The bill before the House rewrites the Land Tax Act 1915 to simplify the existing legislation. As there are no changes to the tax rates, exemptions or concessions or significant policy changes proposed in the rewrite, the rewrite retains Queensland’s current land tax revenue base. Land tax is an important revenue source and it is important for the government to preserve this important revenue source. In the 2008-09 financial year land tax raised $838 million in revenue, representing 9.44 per cent of the $8.877 billion collected in state taxes. The forecast for 2009-10 is that it will increase by approximately two per cent, representing 11.3 per cent of the forecast total state tax revenue. The bill will reduce red tape for exempt religious and charitable organisations who are land tax payers and streamline processes for the government and for organisations. The Land Tax Act 1915 includes an exemption for exempt charitable institutions. The Duties Act 2001 and Payroll Tax Act 1971 contain similar exemptions. The Duties Act 2001 provides a system of registration for exempt institutions so that, once an institution is registered, the commissioner is not required to reinvestigate the institution’s exempt status before granting an exemption. A requirement for exempt institutions to advise the commissioner if their circumstances change ensures the exemptions are not granted if an institution no longer has exemption status. The bill will allow for a single registration system that will apply across all three tax schemes. It is very interesting to note that we continually hear that this is a bad tax, we need to reduce taxes and we need to reduce money coming into the government, yet people still want increased services and infrastructure in their electorates. If anyone out there knows how we do that without people paying more tax and without increasing tax revenue I would like to know. Without that revenue we cannot get the infrastructure and the services that the people demand as well as what we ask for here in this House. It does surprise me that people keep asking for more services and less taxes. Unfortunately, there is no way we can do that. With that, I commend the bill to the House. Mr DEMPSEY (Bundaberg—LNP) (8.54 pm): I rise to speak on the Land Tax Bill 2010. While this bill has numerous objectives, I would like to focus on the rewrite of provisions of the Land Tax Act 1915 and on the introduction of a single registration for charitable institutions that will apply for land tax, payroll tax and duty tax schemes. With an act as old as the Land Tax Act 1915 it is natural that some of the core taxing exemption provisions have become outdated over time. Over the decades new situations and circumstances that were not covered in the original legislation have arisen and have had to be covered over a number of years by different amendments. Over these decades weaknesses and flaws in the legislation also surfaced that had to be amended. Like any legislation, the Land Tax Act 1915 has needed to be revisited over time. This meant that the act had to be amended by this parliament to address parts that had become outdated and redundant in relation to modern societies. Unfortunately, as a result of numerous amendments, the act has become confusing and inconsistent. Even legal specialists in the area of land tax and members of this parliament would admit that the Land Tax Act 1915 has become confusing because of its inconsistencies and incoherent structure. It is unfair to expect taxpayers to understand a bill that is admittedly confusing, incoherent and inconsistent according to the experts in the field and many people in real estate, property dealers and the legal fraternity. The Land Tax Bill 2010 is sensible legislation as taxpayers will be able to read it in basic, plain English. The rewrite retains the existing tax rates, exemptions and concessions but presents them in a way that is so much simpler for Queenslanders to understand. The rewrite will also provide a structure that is easy for the taxpayer to follow. Having the core tax provisions at the start followed by grouped exemptions will make it easier to navigate and understand the complexities of this legislation. It will remove the confusion surrounding the provisions and exemptions that many Queenslanders have when trying to understand their tax responsibilities. Providing the public rulings in the Land Tax Bill 2010 will also be helpful to the taxpayers as they will see how the act works in practice. Knowing the actual rulings in relation to specific circumstances will also remove further confusion. This rewrite was surely needed to remove the inconsistencies and provide clarity and transparency in the legislation and will eventually benefit all the Queensland taxpayers and the community in general. Apart from the taxpayer, another group who will benefit from the rewrite is charitable institutions and non-profit organisations. Charities provide a range of great services to Queensland communities and deserve to have as little red tape as possible. We have spoken on many occasions about the amount of bureaucratic red tape that exists within this state government and it is great to be able to see some form of reduction of that type of red tape. Mr Finn interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Yeerongpilly, please return to your own seat if you wish to interject. 13 Apr 2010 Land Tax Bill 1311

Mr DEMPSEY: Currently charities have to register separately under three tax laws, creating excessive paperwork and confusion for those great Queenslanders who give of their time to help charity groups and many other non-profit organisations. Many of these organisations are run by volunteers and many members of the House could rattle off the names of volunteers who are the heart and soul of their communities. They are more about giving than taking in their local communities. Having to separately register for land tax, payroll tax and duties tax is currently necessary, but a single registration process is a much more sensible and practical system for our state’s charities, which continue to struggle. Providing a single registration process for our state’s charitable institutions would also save time, lessen the workload and remove the confusion faced by those hardworking people running these charities. I commend the legislation that assists our charities as well as non-profit organisations. The Land Tax Bill 2010 retains the core of our current land tax legislation in its rewrite but makes it simpler to navigate and understand for taxpayers. Most taxes distort economic decisions. If labour, buildings, machinery and plant are taxed, people are dissuaded from undertaking constructive and beneficial activities and taking on new enterprises, and efficiencies are penalised due to the excessive burden of taxation. We have seen this happen time and time again under the current Labor state government in relation to not giving people incentives to move forward in their lives. We need to be able to simplify our taxation system, particularly land tax, so people have incentives to go out there and do the hard yards and build a future for themselves, their children and their grandchildren. This does not apply to land tax, which is payable regardless of how the land is used. In relation to land tax, I implore the state government to reduce the confusion in relation to the assessment of land tax. We know how that refers back to local councils and then that becomes a burden on the ratepayers later down the track. Land tax is a visible component and it should not be affected by other economic decisions. In closing, I support the bill. Mr MALONE (Mirani—LNP) (9.02 pm): It is with pleasure that I rise to support the Land Tax Bill 2010. In terms of the rewrite of the legislation, it certainly is a step forward in taking away the confusion that has existed over a period of time in relation to the imposition of land tax in Queensland. From all of the points that have been raised by the shadow minister and by members who have spoken on this bill, it is important to realise from the productive side of industry in Queensland that land tax is one of those taxes that imposes constraints on people to go forward and do the hard yards in terms of developing Queensland. In real terms, the people who actually build houses and mortgage their own homes to buy development property or to build a set of units or whatever are the people who ultimately end up paying very considerable amounts of land tax. Quite frankly, it really is an imposition on those people whom members on the other side of the House believe they represent. In terms of people who rent, the imposition of land tax over the years has increased substantially. That creates an impost, as I said, on the investors who then make investment decisions about whether they will increase their portfolio in terms of being a landlord. There is a huge issue in terms of where we move to from there. Quite frankly, it is important that from a government perspective we rationalise and make sure that we are not imposing extra taxes on people who utilise their own money and use their own initiative to do this sort of work. As I said, I support the direction of the bill and all the speakers have supported that. It is an indication of moving forward with better legislation. In terms of being able to pay the land tax in instalments, that certainly has major benefits for people who have substantial land tax bills. With those few words, I support the bill. Mrs SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (9.04 pm): The issues of land tax and valuations can bring a great deal of public consternation which we observed recently. If these issues are not handled well, it can affect businesses adversely and also cause a dip in investment in rental properties as well as causing difficulties for homeowners. However, statistics show that Queensland has the highest threshold and the lowest maximum rate of any state in Australia for individual taxpayers who also must own $600,000 or more in the value of land, with the exemption of their own principal place of residence, before they will be required to pay land tax. The present legislation has been in existence for almost 100 years, and so it is being replaced with a plain English version and updated without changing the substantive parts of the bill, such as continuing the practice of basing land tax on the unimproved value of land. As certain charitable organisations qualify for exemptions, this bill moves these provisions to the Taxation Administration Act 2001 to simplify matters and also to reduce a lot of red tape. A further clarification will make clear all exemptions from land tax and ensure that these provisions are easy to understand. The previous capping arrangement will remain until 2010-11, making the value on which land tax is levied limited to 150 per cent of the land value. In 2009-10, the Queensland government has reaped $142 million less in land tax due to the three-year averaging provisions. A further $25 million has been saved by taxpayers through the capping of values. Should it be preferred by the landowner, an instalment plan is available for three equal payments within 45, 90 and 150 days from notification. 1312 Land Tax Bill 13 Apr 2010

The valuations legislation met with the approval of industry groups, with the Property Council’s executive director stating— I would like to acknowledge the strong leadership shown by the Premier in our final negotiations which ensured that a satisfactory resolution could be reached. This bill, in conjunction with the previous land valuation act, brings certainty and clarifies the issues for property owners. I commend the bill to the House. Ms FARMER (Bulimba—ALP) (9.07 pm): I rise to speak briefly in support of the Land Tax Bill 2010. The bill repeals and replaces the Land Tax Act 1915, a piece of legislation that has been amended frequently since 1915, reflects inconsistent and outdated drafting practices and lacks a coherent structure so that it is not easy to use. The language reflects a multitude of drafting styles from 1915 to the present. The structure is such that taxing, exemption and machinery provisions are intermingled. Contrary to current drafting practice, definitions are at the beginning of the act, and substantive and lengthy definitions are not grouped with related provisions and are therefore difficult to locate. Most other states and the ACT have rewritten their land tax legislation since 2000. Queensland started the modernisation process last year when the standard administration provisions of the Taxation Administration Act 2001 were extended to land tax. Land tax is now governed by the same administrative provisions as duties and payroll tax. This bill completes the modernisation process for land tax and was guided by the following principles: simplification of the provisions by restructuring and use of plain English; recognition of current business practices and changes in technology; consistency with other states’ land tax legislation where possible; minimisation of administration and compliance costs; and retention of Queensland’s revenue base and current land tax policy. The bill provides greater certainty and reduces the costs of compliance and administration for taxpayers and the Office of State Revenue respectively. It introduces a systematic structure, with provisions that reflect a modern and contemporary drafting approach. Although some minor changes were necessary to modernise and simplify the legislation, the existing land tax base, policy and tax rates have not changed. I particularly applaud the provisions of the bill which introduce a single registration for charitable institutions that will apply for land tax, payroll and duties tax streams, thus reducing red tape for taxpayers and for government. I am pleased to see that this measure is a reflection of the broader approach which this responsive state government is taking to reducing red tape—an approach which is being applauded by businesses in the Bulimba electorate. The provisions of the bill also introduce extended payment arrangements for land tax and provide a cap on the increase in value on which land tax is assessed for the 2010-11 financial year—yet further examples of the responsiveness of this state government to the needs of Queenslanders. I must acknowledge at this point that these particular provisions do specifically respond to the needs of a number of constituents who have raised concerns with me about land tax and valuations. I thank those constituents for raising those issues with me, and I thank the Treasurer for his consideration of the issues. I know that extensive public consultation was undertaken in relation to this bill. An exposure draft bill and explanatory notes were published on the Office of State Revenue’s website in November 2009 seeking comment on the bill by the end of January 2010. Particular stakeholders such as the Property Council of Australia, the Real Estate Institute of Queensland and the Queensland Law Society were also briefed. Comments from the consultation process were considered and changes incorporated in the final bill as necessary, consistent with the policy underlying the bill. Generally, the new bill has been well supported by taxpayers. I cannot refer to a bill which has been put forward by the Treasurer without also acknowledging the significant work he has undertaken in the last year to help Queensland keep its head above water throughout the global financial crisis. In the face of the worst financial crisis in decades, the Bligh Labor government has instituted a raft of responsible financial policies to ensure that Queensland is well prepared for the future. With 2,200 more people coming to Queensland every week, it is crucial that we continue with this comprehensive strategy, including the $18 billion building program, tax breaks for employees of apprentices and trainees, the lowest payroll tax rate in the nation, initiatives like the Green Army program and the training up of our workforce of the future. I congratulate the Treasurer on his contribution to this work, and I congratulate him on bringing this bill to the House. I commend the bill to the House. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—LNP) (9.12 pm): All revenue including land tax being collected by this government is critical because of one economic fact: this state, under Labor management of our finances for approximately the last 20 years, has recorded record levels of debt. Our grandchildren will be paying the debt that this Premier and the merry band of little kleptocrats she has attached to herself have run up. In this financial year of 2009-10, there will be $23.3 billion worth of debt. If we do some ballpark calculations at an interest rate of 10 per cent, that is $2.3 billion, or $44.9 million per week in interest payments, or $6.4 million per day, or more than double the amount of land tax revenue forecast 13 Apr 2010 Land Tax Bill 1313 for this year. In the next financial year of 2010-11, we are looking at $36.3 billion. Once again, if calculations are made at an interest rate of 10 per cent, it is $3.6 billion per year, $69.8 million per week, $9.97 million per day, or over four times the amount of land tax revenue forecast for this year. In the financial year 2011-12, it will be $45.1 billion worth of debt. Calculated at an interest rate of 10 per cent, that is $4.9 billion per year in interest payments alone, $96 million per week, $13.7 million per day, or almost six times the total amount of land tax expected this year. These record levels of government debt are the reason why international rating companies have downgraded our state’s credit rating from AAA to AA. The reason why this government has to sell off state assets is that with its current levels of government spending if it does not sell off state assets then we will have another forced credit downgrading, and that would spell political death and another round of public asset sell-offs. That is the reason why a prudent alternative government cannot promise to abolish this tax in the short term. Although I think the debate on the issue of land tax revenue has been one sided—it is a bit like the payroll tax debate—it is fair enough to ask how much the state would benefit in jobs, prosperity and economic development to the community if we were able to phase out these taxes. Land tax was first introduced, as many members have previously said, in Queensland in 1915 via the Land Tax Act by the Ryan Labor government. According to Parliamentary Library research, in introducing the bill into the Legislative Assembly, the Treasurer, EG Theodore, explained the rationale for the introduction of the tax by saying that additional revenue was required for the further development of the state. Land tax was a well-known part of the financial policy of the Labor Party. Land tax would bring in a definite sum that would be fairly easy to estimate. Land tax could be regulated to fall most heavily on those whom the then Treasurer said were best able to contribute by way of taxation towards the revenue of the country, and land tax could be used to discourage land speculation and bring about certain economic reforms—namely, destroying private monopolies in land and forcing the utilisation of land. The exemptions—and I say exemptions for the moment because we cannot trust anything that the current government tells us—from land tax are for the home of the owner or the home of the beneficiaries of the trust which holds the properties provided that they meet with the commissioner’s satisfaction that the property is their principal place of residence; charitable institutions; aged-care facilities; Commonwealth, state and local government or statutory authority land, except where the entity is subject to statutory taxation; land used solely for the business of agriculture, pasture or dairy farming; movable dwelling parks where more than 50 per cent of the sites are occupied or available for long-term occupancy; port authority land; recreational and public land including land held for not-for-profit societies, clubs or associations; retirement villages; friendly societies; and trade unions. I note that the Goss government lowered the level of tax from 15.8 per cent to 1.8 per cent while the Borbidge government undertook to abolish the tax completely over a 10-year period, but this commitment has never been matched by subsequent governments. According to Parliamentary Library research, land tax is estimated to increase by 29.7 per cent to $1.047 billion in 2009-10, or 11 per cent of taxation revenue and 2.8 per cent of total revenue. Despite the increase in land tax liabilities in 2009-10, in 2009-10 it is estimated that the revenue foregone as a result of three-year averaging will be approximately $142 million. While there are no details available on the level of land tax revenue beyond 2009-10, the library estimates that by applying this year’s proportion of land tax—11.3 per cent—to forecast total revenue in 2010-11 the figure is around $1.129 billion. We have to be responsive to small businesses which find it difficult to meet their land tax payments. This is a time of credit squeeze for small to medium sized businesses. It has to be acknowledged that their only source of credit, unlike large businesses which can raise money from the share markets, is the banks. The feedback that I am receiving from Burnett small businesses is that banks are becoming more and more mercenary in their lending policies. They are very quick to call in loans if businesses get slightly behind. In fact, one small business owner and operator who has been in a successful business for 40 years says that he would rather owe money to the taxation department than the bank. I applaud the provisions in this legislation for instalment payments for land tax. I would like to hear from any small business which has to deal with the government regarding their payments. We must ever be vigilant and ensure that compassionate and common-sense people administer the provisions in relation to land tax. The Labor Party under this Premier has focused its fiscal tactics on short-term political survival, not long-term policies for state recovery and growth. We have a reasonable proposition for land tax at the moment. But as Labor becomes more and more desperate for cash—and we can see that by the steady build-up of debt—this government will find new and innovative ways of making more money from land tax. I suggest that a prudent and sensible alternative government should do the opposite. 1314 Adjournment 13 Apr 2010

Labor of the 21st century is a far cry from the voice of the worker of the 20th century. We have corrupt kleptocrats and spivs in suits who have replaced the shearers, canecutters and navvies who made up the old Labor Party. The worst of the bourgeoisie has replaced the diggers in the party. How will we deal with the pile of fiscal mess left by Labor? First of all we need to get an accurate picture of the size of the problem. We need an audit. In that audit we need to identify the waste. We need to identify the corruption. We need to have a policy of not spending more than we earn. We need to draw up plans to bring Labor’s bloated budget deficit under control. We need to ask this question honestly: can government learn to do more with less? In other words, can it become smarter? I note that in my reading I have discovered during the Swedish economic crisis in the mid-1990s that the government succeeded in shaving 11 per cent off its budget without apparent damage to performance. There should be no more Traveston Dams, no more hurriedly constructed western corridor pipelines—as other members have spoken about here—no more Tugun desalination plants, which end up being a black pit that we throw money into, and no more $30 million for Agnes Water desalination plants. Let us spend some money on high schools and flood proofing the roads leading into Agnes Water. There should be no more unexplained project cost blowouts. The Bundaberg ring-road doubled in cost. It went from around $50 million to around $100 million. Let us have no more success fees for Labor mates. By cutting back on those obvious excesses of this government we can at least chart a course where in the future we can wind back taxes such as land tax. Barack Obama said that the question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or small but whether it works. Obviously this government does not work. The alarming rising debt levels and the lack of service delivery are key indicators of that. In the past business could compensate for and overcome bad government but because of the size of the government, the amount of regulation that this government has and its rules it is very hard for businesses to comply with the rules now and then turn a profit and in doing so keep employees employed, keep the workers working and keep creating wealth for our state. Imagine the freedom of not owing anyone a cent and being debt free and not having to rely on income revenues like land tax to service the interest payments alone on that debt. Debt keeps many people in jobs they do not like and doing deals that are not good for them or their families. National and state government debt is no different to personal debt. I have to congratulate Barnaby Joyce because he asked the right questions. He asked the hard questions about debt. Given the wasteful spending spree, the ‘tax them to the hilt’ attitude and the fire sale of Queensland state assets by Rudd and this Premier, it is proper in relation to public debt to ask how much do we owe, who do we owe it to and can we repay it? After all, deep within our hearts—and despite the soothing reassurances and all the deliberately confusing financial jargon—we all know that debt is just another form of slavery. If we do not ask the hard questions and learn to live within our means very soon we will need the international equivalent of a lotto jackpot win just to help us meet the weekly debt repayments of the state and federal governments. When I looked at the domestic public debt and the debt to gross state product and gross domestic product ratio—I have been provided a chart on this by the Parliamentary Library—I saw that we were in the negatives right up until 2008-09. Our net debt went from minus $2.08 billion to $13.8 billion. We have a gross state product of $213 billion. The gross state product has gone from $155.5 billion in 2001- 02 to a projected $243.8 billion in 2012-13 with a net debt of $49.9 billion or a debt to gross state product ratio of 20.5 per cent. If we compare that with New South Wales, while it has a projected debt of $54.6 billion its gross state product is $323.4 billion or 16.9 per cent. We can see why the New South Wales government’s credit rating has not been reduced. If Labor politicians and their bureaucrats are allowed to recklessly spend our tax dollars on projects that do not contribute to our wealth and wellbeing, then one of the only questions left to ask will be: who and what do we want our children to be slaves to? Some 55 per cent of our debt in Queensland, accrued through the Queensland Treasury Corporation, I am told is overseas debt and 45 per cent is domestic debt. There is no doubt that we are in a debt crisis and need every cent of land tax just to meet part of the interest payments. There is no doubt who got us into the financial mess. It was Labor. There is no doubt from what we hear from those opposite that Labor has no idea how to fix the debt crisis. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Messenger, adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT

Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (9.27 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. 13 Apr 2010 Adjournment 1315

Redlands Electorate, Tree Planting; Redlands Electorate, Koalas Mr DOWLING (Redlands—LNP) (9.27 pm): Tonight I rise to speak on three issues. The first relates to concerns in my community that an estimated $500,000 will be paid by Main Roads to DERM for offset tree planting triggered by tree removal along Cleveland-Redland Bay Road as part of intersection upgrades. Community members accept the importance of offsets. They do, however, raise their eyebrows when they hear that there is no guarantee that all of the moneys will be reinvested in the Redlands, especially when the Redlands plays host to one of Australia’s most iconic species—the koala. Redland City Council has been proactive in developing enhancement areas, environmental links and corridors. It would argue very strongly that all vegetation and enhancement should take place in the Redlands. Tonight I would call on the government to commit all offsets to be reinvested in the Redlands. Secondly, koala numbers in the Redlands have been confirmed as being in decline for at least the last five to six years, perhaps longer, which coincides with the discovery of fire ants in the Redlands, particularly in the area known as the Koala Coast and around that area. I have asked if there is any research to determine the impact that fire ants could have on koalas and other wildlife. I am reliably informed that fire ants are a most invasive pest that decimate any environment through their predatory aggressive behaviours. I have also asked about the impact foxes might have on koala numbers. So far answers have not been forthcoming from either the ministers responsible for DPI or DERM or their representative departments. I can only conclude that the ministers do not consider fire ants a threat to wildlife in the Redlands, that the ministers have failed to conduct an appropriate assessment of a potential threat to the iconic koala and other species in the Redlands or, following my continued questioning going back to late last year, the government is finally developing a strategy, albeit potentially too little, too late. Redlands was also promised a busway to be delivered in 2016 by the then Beattie Labor government, but under the Bligh Labor government during the biggest boom in the Labor went bust. The busway is now planned for 2026. At a time when Redlands is being asked to take growth and provide its own employment opportunities, what is Labor providing? It is shifting the goalposts, employment areas are removed from the urban footprint, self-contained village settlement patterns are removed from the investigation area, there is no rail duplication, no duplication of road networks from Victoria Point to Brisbane and no busway. How does Labor expect Redlands to deliver on a plan and infrastructure when Labor continues to move the goalposts and has failed to deliver on what it has promised? To recap, revegetation needs to occur in Redlands for the offset, we need to address the threat to wildlife and koalas, and Labor needs to provide certainty for Redlanders and infrastructure. (Time expired) Mount Ommaney Electorate, Capital Works Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (9.30 pm): This government is rolling out an $18 billion road building program over the next five years. Not only is this creating much needed employment in Queensland; it is also great news for motorists and local communities. In relation to projects affecting the Mount Ommaney electorate, the Centenary Highway-Ipswich Motorway interchange was opened last year, improving traffic flow and safety for motorists. The Wacol to Darra project will deliver substantial improvements to traffic flow on the Ipswich Motorway. Besides all of the great engineering and construction projects completed or underway, the Wacol to Darra project team is contributing to local community life through its involvement with a number of projects. Recently the project team provided the Jindalee Rotary Club with 15 cubic metres of concrete to build a storage shed at Darra for the club’s property, assets and equipment. This resulted from a discussion we had when the club received $10,000 worth of antigraffiti equipment from the project team in November last year. The equipment included a high-pressure gurney, paintbrushes, rollers, high- visibility clothing, gloves and antigraffiti chemicals so it could continue the great work that Ann and Anthony Lanza started when the antigraffiti group was formed in my office 11 years ago. No-one likes seeing the tagging or offensive words sprayed on walls and buildings across the community by bored teenagers and young adults. The project team has also donated more than 50 water-filled barriers to the Darra-Oxley Pony Club for showjumping and has raised more than $30,000 for the RSPCA, Angel Flight and Youngcare. Last year I was able to be involved in its sponsored tomato patch program at Middle Park State School, where preschool children were introduced to the wonders of nature through hands-on experience transplanting tomato and lettuce seedlings into their own pots which were taken home and further cared for. I worked with the Main Roads team as patron of the Centenary Junior Rugby League Football Club towards the successful relocation of its sporting fields to Grindle Road at Wacol a number of years ago. The club needed to move from its long-time location at the end of the Centenary Highway so that the new interchange and a railway line to Springfield could be constructed. The club is now thriving, with 1316 Adjournment 13 Apr 2010 its state-of-the-art facilities being utilised by a number of other community organisations as well. After my representations, Main Roads came on board again recently to provide funding for the upgrade of some of its fields. This support demonstrates how major infrastructure projects are able to contribute effectively back to the communities affected by road upgrade works. It is encouraging to see the Wacol to Darra project team not only working to deliver such vital infrastructure but also taking the time to consider how it can positively contribute to the community. ‘Pornification of Culture’ Mr GIBSON (Gympie—LNP) (9.33 pm): The ‘pornification of culture’ is a phrase that I had never heard of until recently, when I had the opportunity at a dinner to listen to Melinda Tankard Reist make a very disturbing presentation on how corporations, advertisers, marketers and media objectify women and sexualise girls to sell products and services. That is the term the ‘pornification of culture’. I left the dinner thinking about many things that Melinda had addressed. I thought of my 12-year-old daughter and her four older brothers. As a father, husband, parent, citizen and member of this parliament, I began to think of what I could do to stop this occurring. I started to get angry about how as a society we have allowed messages from corporations, advertisers, marketers and media to present distorted and dishonest ideas about women and girls, sexuality and relationships. These messages are often offensive and harmful, especially to women and girls but also to men and boys. I went home from that dinner and spoke with my wife. I sat down and talked with my family. I joined Collective Shout, a website with resources for anyone who is concerned about the increasing ‘pornification’ of culture and the way its messages are becoming entrenched in mainstream society. I got the book Getting Real: Challenging the Sexualisation of Girls and started to read. The more research I have done, the more disturbed I have become. We who have the privilege to sit in this chamber have a responsibility to ensure that our society is a place that is safe for our youth. We need to ensure our communities and families have the opportunity to be strengthened. The harms associated with the increasing sexualisation of childhood and the objectification of women have been raised in recent times by many stakeholders and in many academic reports that have been concerned with children’s health and wellbeing. Often when our electorate is faced with a problem people will say, ‘Tell your MP.’ I would like to put out the challenge to all of us as MPs to work together on this problem by educating our electorates on what we can do. As a parent I know firsthand that our children are listening to our words and watching our actions, even when they seem not to be. As an MP that is also true. Our electorates watch what we do and what we say. There seems to be so much pressure these days on our youth. They are bombarded with messages that seem to be focused on ‘Are you hot or not?’ How long are we prepared to allow this type of pressure on our children to continue? The changes we need are not found in more laws but rather in more courage—courage to speak out, courage to accept our women and girls for who they are and not what shape they are. This is not some attack of the moralising masses or a man-hating feminist agenda; it is a challenge we face when our children are not free to be children. We as a parliament must address this important issue if we are to have a strong future in Queensland. Eimeo Surf Life Saving Club Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (9.36 pm): Last Sunday I was delighted to spend a few hours with members of the Eimeo Surf Life Saving Club to celebrate the official opening of its new training room facility. The day was also an informal celebration of the club’s 10th birthday, and I could not help but reflect on the amazing achievements realised by the club in this short time. From a standing start, the club now proudly boasts a membership of 408. Of course, the main work of the club is patrolling the popular Eimeo Beach during the summer months and developing the skills and abilities of the 110 juniors and 60 green caps, or under-7s, who participate in club activities. We are fortunate indeed that the club has 53 patrolling members who undertook 2,943 hours of duty this season. I have to say that, with all of the rain we have had this year, many of those hours would have been spent in less than ideal beach conditions. One of the most important roles of surf-lifesavers in North Queensland is to regularly drag the water for the presence of box jellyfish. 2010 has been a particularly bad year for these deadly creatures. In fact, the beach was closed while I was at the club on Sunday because a number of jellyfish had been caught in the morning’s drag. One of the box jellyfish was truly enormous, with a bell much bigger than the biggest man’s hand. It was by far the biggest stinger I have ever seen and would most certainly inflict a fatal dose of toxin on a child and even an adult. It is exactly because the beaches can be closed at times like this that the club’s new training room is such a valuable facility. The training room sits atop the club’s existing kitchen, storage and meeting spaces on the ground floor. It had been planned for but, due to costs, the club was struggling to complete the project. Club president John Galea and past president Duncan Sandford have always 13 Apr 2010 Adjournment 1317 been positive in applying for grants and keeping me informed of their progress and their outstanding needs. I was therefore well aware of the problems they were having in accessing funding to complete the clubhouse. For technical reasons, they were unable to access funding through the existing sport and recreation program, so I was delighted when the Premier saw fit to commit funding to the club as part of last year’s election campaign. The $100,000 delivered by this government has been put to great use and, with the construction of the upstairs training room, office space and toilets, the clubhouse is now complete. I was very happy to accept the club’s invitation to officially open the training room, which was named the Tony Pashalis Training Room in memory of one of the club’s most outstanding members who tragically passed away last year. It was a very moving occasion to have Tony’s wife and family present for the occasion. The occasion presented an opportunity to say thankyou to the amazing men, women and children who volunteer their time every summer to keep the community safe at the beach, and I am pleased to put that gratitude on the record again tonight. In particular, I congratulate John Galea and his club for their many years of dedicated effort on behalf of the Mackay community. Cleveland Electorate, Park-and-Ride Spaces Dr ROBINSON (Cleveland—LNP) (9.39 pm): I rise to address the lack of car park spaces at train stations in the electorate of Cleveland and, in so doing, to urge the government to keep an election promise that it made and to review its ‘disintegrated’ plan. This month the government’s rail plan ran off track when it admitted that the number of new park-and-ride spaces at Cleveland’s stations would fall short of what was promised during the 2009 state election campaign. Recently the government revealed that, over the three-year period, Birkdale station would receive as little as 28 extra spaces, Ormiston station would receive 102 new spaces, while the Cleveland and Wellington Point stations would receive nothing. This plan will do little to relieve frustrated commuters who cannot find a car park. During the 2009 election campaign, the government promised 50 extra parking spaces at Birkdale station. The most recent information provided reveals that the government has reduced that pledge from 50 to 34—minus up to six spaces to be resumed from the current car park—leaving a mere 28 extra spaces. That is not only another underwhelming achievement of the Bligh government but also a broken election promise. The people of Birkdale have been duped. They trusted the government to keep its promise, but it has again failed them. They feel even more ripped off when they contrast that plan with the LNP’s plan to deliver up to 150 new spaces at Birkdale. The only other station to receive an upgrade is Ormiston station. The vacant land adjacent to the station has the potential of providing 150 new car park spaces. The government’s plan is to create 102 new spaces. Although this commitment is a more significant one than the government’s commitment for car park spaces at Birkdale station, as the only significant car park spaces upgrade in all of the Redlands, it will create problems for the residents of Ormiston, particularly for the children and families of the Ormiston State School. Then there are the omissions from Labor’s ‘disintegrated’ plan. The government’s plan does nothing for the people who live in the Wellington Point and Cleveland suburbs. Although the car park at the Wellington Point station is full, the car park at the Cleveland station is bursting and in need of a major upgrade. As I proposed in late 2008, an integrated approach that provides significant extra car parking spaces spread across a number of stations is needed. The LNP’s integrated plan for Cleveland would have delivered significantly more new car park spaces over the three years across the stations at Cleveland. It would have relieved the pressure at all of the stations—unlike the government’s plan, which will provide little to no relief at the Birkdale station and a bottleneck at the Ormiston station. Tonight I call on the government to do three things in the 2010-11 budget: firstly, to keep its promise of 50 extra car park spaces at Birkdale station, not as little as 28; secondly, to provide extra car park spaces at Wellington Point station; and, thirdly, to provide funding for a feasibility study into a major redevelopment of the Cleveland station. F/A-18F Super Hornets Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (9.42 pm): Tonight, I want to advise members of this House that they can now sleep more soundly in their beds. Why can I say that? For those who are not aware, I can advise that the Australian Air Force recently welcomed home the first five of 24 Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet fighter jets to the RAAF base at Amberley. I, along with that well-known parliamentary lover of all things mechanical, that is the Deputy Premier, and a gaggle of other federal and local government politicians, senior RAAF and other Defence Force personnel, United States Navy and Boeing dignitaries and, of course, the families and loved ones of the pilots themselves were allowed to get up close and personal with these cutting-edge fighters on their arrival a couple of weeks ago. Quite simply, the arrival of the Super Hornets marks a new chapter for Australia’s defence and Air Force capabilities. However, as members may have noticed on the day they arrived, the current F111 aircraft, although old, are not yet out of the picture and to prove that they provided a great welcome to Australia when four F111s escorted in the five new F/A 18s on the day. 1318 Adjournment 13 Apr 2010

As everyone knows, our 24 Super Hornets will become Australia’s bridging air combat capability during the transition to the joint strike fighter force and, as such, will maintain our regional air superiority as our F111s are withdrawn. Further, members will be pleased to note that the Super Hornet project is on budget and on schedule and, as such, stands as an outstanding example of an accelerated acquisition and model partnership.

For those in the know, the new Super Hornets are known affectionately as the ‘Rhinos’ and will be operated by Nos 1 and 6 Squadrons at the RAAF base at Amberley. As such, these US-built multirole fighters will be Australia’s first new combat aircraft type in 25 years when they replace the RAAF’s 37- year-old F111 fleet, which will unfortunately retire at the end of this year. Although the new fighters share a strong resemblance to the Air Force’s existing F/A-18As and Bs—or the classic Hornets as they are known—the new aircraft feature greater stealth characteristics, an enlarged airframe, more powerful engines, greater weapons and fuel payload, advanced avionics and, to top it all off, state-of-the-art radar.

I can report that the residents and wider community in the Ipswich region are thrilled to see these new aircraft in the sky and look forward to the benefits that they will bring. For those who do not know what this means to the local area, I point out that it is an injection of more than $1 billion annually to the Ipswich regional economy, with around 3,000 service personnel, civilian staff and contractors working on the base and, with that, Amberley’s presence also sustains a further 2,000 jobs in the local community.

Put simply, the introduction of new aircraft types such as the Super Hornet demonstrates the federal government’s and the Air Force’s long-term commitment to the base at Amberley and the larger community. As such, Amberley will remain a vital component of Australia’s national security infrastructure and a major contributor to the local economy for decades to come.

Highland Park

Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—LNP) (9.45 pm): Unfortunately, people in my electorate of Gaven are not sleeping as quietly. In some ways, my electorate needs a version of the Super Hornets, but on the ground. People are entitled to quiet contentment in the safety of their own homes. In Highland Park in my electorate there is a major uphill rise that has beautiful views overlooking the Gold Coast. The lives of those living in this beautiful area have been made miserable for up to six years now owing to groups who have taken on this place as a regular hangout and party spot. These groups hoon loudly up the streets, hill climbing through Nerang and Highland Park to get to the spot. Residents have been subjected to petty theft, vandalism and the destruction of private property, harassment, littering, public fornication and alcohol and drug use. These groups make up a number of younger adults who regularly meet at the peak of the suburb and party from late afternoon to the early hours of the morning through the week and on weekends. You have to see the terrible mess that you find after a party to believe it. Copious amounts of alcohol bottles and cans, drug-taking apparatus, including family hoses that have been cut and stolen from surrounding properties, and fast food wrappers and boxes are dumped all over the streets. If the mess is left on private land, the council cannot clean it up.

Residents can be verbally threatened by these groups—and they are regularly. They are scared to come out of their houses at night. They are also fearful of a terrible accident occurring right outside their homes. To quote a local resident—

I have people ringing my doorbell in the early hours of the morning. One time someone tried to climb over my fence, I’ve had some very drunk people running and hitting my gates ... We have had 2 fires started on the end of our street, which could have been a disaster. I ... have been verbally abused by drunks in their cars even at 6 am; the people leave rubbish, condoms, drugs and even dead animals behind ... More police presence would help, I understand the numbers are low but these disturbances are of major concern.

Local residents contact the police each time these incidents occur but, very simply, the police just do not have the resources to get to the site on time. The police tell the residents that they are attending to higher priority call-outs and, once the police get to the site, the groups have moved on. Further, the police have only one car for this massive area.

I call on the police minister to rectify this situation and to help over 10,000 residents reclaim their very basic rights of peace and safety. I ask the police minister to adequately resource the Nerang Police Station with more officers and cars monitoring this area of Highland Park at the party times identified. Highland Park and Nerang residents’ patience has been exhausted and our police resources are exhausted. This situation must be addressed and corrected. It is not satisfactory. These reckless offenders must have their cars confiscated and crushed. Anyone breaking the law must be charged and dealt with severely. The residents need to be able to reclaim peace and security within their own neighbourhood. The solutions may seem tough, but they are appropriate. Tough love is needed. 13 Apr 2010 Adjournment 1319

Townsville CBD, Public Intoxication and Homelessness Ms JOHNSTONE (Townsville—ALP) (9.48 pm): On 30 March I hosted a meeting of community leaders and stakeholders to discuss the issue of public intoxication and homelessness in the Townsville CBD and surrounding parks. This is not an issue that is unique to Townsville. However, in recent times the problem has escalated to such a level that it has warranted serious consideration about what new strategies can be developed to address this long-term problem. The meeting received ideas and presentations from various participants, including my own ideas for a way forward. I was heartened by the broad support that my proposal received from Indigenous elders, CBD residents and business leaders and also from the people who are currently working at the coalface on this issue. My proposal, which was endorsed by the people who attended the meeting, is asking the state government to consider, firstly, investigating the option of involuntary detoxification and rehabilitation for chronic alcoholics who have refused voluntary treatment, including an investigation into what is the appropriate body to determine who would be subject to any proposed treatment; secondly, establishing a task force of key personnel across all three levels of government to develop and implement changes to service delivery for public intoxication and homelessness services in Townsville; and, thirdly, developing key measurable indicators that will allow the assessment of current service delivery. As I see it, there are both short- and long-term gains to be made in this area. I thank the Minister for Community Services and Housing for establishing the task force so quickly. It is great to see work already underway to closely examine current drug, alcohol and homelessness services being offered in Townsville and elsewhere to see what improvements can be made. Any long-term strategies developed must provide a deterrent for antisocial and illegal behaviour but must also address the root cause of the behaviour, which is alcoholism. We need a health based response. Alcoholism is an addiction and an illness; it is not a choice or lifestyle for this group of people. Healing of hurt and past trauma, both of which many of these poor souls have suffered and which has led them to seek comfort in alcohol in the first place, cannot begin until the use of alcohol is mitigated or eliminated. Everyone involved in this issue also acknowledged that some people will need lifelong supports— housing, social, medical or other supports—to assist with maintaining quality of life. This is a tough one. If it were easy, solutions would have been found by now, but we cannot simply maintain the status quo. Too many lives are being destroyed by alcohol and drugs. We must build on the good work that has been done in the past and continues to be done today. I am looking forward to working with the health, communities, police and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander partnerships ministers, the Attorney-General and the Townsville community to further develop these ideas. Taringa Railway Station Mr EMERSON (Indooroopilly—LNP) (9.51 pm): Taringa is one of Brisbane’s most popular suburbs. Tucked between Toowong and Indooroopilly, this green and peaceful area boasts winding streets, plenty of trees and shade, older homes sitting shoulder to shoulder with new units and a friendly atmosphere. But Taringa is also a suburb that has been repeatedly ignored by the Bligh government. An example of this is Labor’s attitude to the local Taringa train station. The train station is an important part of Taringa’s history. Taringa grew when the railway between Brisbane and Ipswich was constructed and the line from Indooroopilly to Brisbane opened in 1875. A modern train station with appropriate access and facilities reduces traffic congestion by encouraging greater use of public transport, but the Taringa Railway Station has been left to run down and is desperately in need of an upgrade. Unfortunately, the Bligh government does not hold the same view. When I asked the transport minister about the timetable for an upgrade to the station, the minister said it ranked as a low priority compared with other stations across the rail network. Upgrade works are unlikely to commence in the near future was the transport minister’s bad news for Taringa locals. A low priority means the Taringa train station is unlikely to see any upgrade in the next decade under the Bligh government. Contrast that with the LNP’s attitude to the Taringa station. As far back as 2006 the LNP identified that the Taringa station needed to be upgraded. At that year’s election the LNP promised to start a refurbishment of the station within 100 days of coming to office. Just as it was in 2006, it is clear that the Taringa station should be more than a low priority for an upgrade. Even looking at the issue of universal access to the station for wheelchairs, prams and bicycles, the Taringa station fails the test. Under the government’s own Disability Access guide, facilities are not available in 13 out of 14 key categories at Taringa station. There is no independent access, no to-city or from-city lift access, no to-city or from-city ramp access, no access between platforms, no high platform, 1320 Attendance 13 Apr 2010 no tactile edges, no electronic timetable, no hearing loop, no low ticket counter, no accessible toilet and no accessible parking. The only facility is a help phone. But do not bother calling the transport minister for help because she views the station as a low priority. The minister has also ruled out an expansion or upgrade of the park-and-ride area at the station. The Bligh government believes that there is no need for park-and-ride spaces within 10 kilometres of the CBD. That is their official TransLink policy. That policy ignores the reality that the park-and-ride spaces at the Taringa station are often full well before 7 am and commuters are left to park up the surrounding streets. The transport minister sees the Taringa train station as a low priority and the Bligh government sees the suburb of Taringa as a low priority.

Narangba Valley State High School, StarQuest

Mr RYAN (Morayfield—ALP) (9.54 pm): I was very fortunate to be able to attend Narangba Valley State High School’s StarQuest 2010. This annual event showcases the amazing student talent at Narangba Valley State High School in a talent quest format. Along with Spencer Howson from 612 ABC, Leisa Cooper from North Lakes State College and Narangba Valley’s favourite tuckshop lady, Julie Price, I was on the panel of adjudicators for this very enjoyable evening. The comperes for the superhero themed talent show were Nathaniel Edwards, Andrew Lamb, Tania Evans and Nathan Tofilau, and they did an outstanding job of keeping the audience attentive, informed and prepared for the next awe-inspiring performance. The performances ranged from musical groups to vocal soloists to instrumental soloists to comedy acts to dance groups to musical theatre performances. All the performances were unbelievably exceptional and all performing students are to be commended for their respective contributions and their fine creative talents and abilities. Understandably, it was very difficult for the panel of adjudicators to select those performances for formal accolades and commendation. Special note must be made of the following performances: ‘Smooth Criminals’ by dance group REVENGE; ‘All of Me’ by pianist Karl Paewai; the dance crew N- SPIRE; ‘Taylor the Latte Boy’ and ‘Taylor the Rebuttal’ by Vivien Emsworth-Copland and Amy Beahan. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the final performance for the night. This last act was a musical and dance performance by some very brave and talented teachers. The teachers performed a piece from the television show Glee. The teachers were brilliant. Their creativity and talents were certainly on show—and they delivered! After seeing the teachers’ performance, there was no doubt in people’s minds that the Narangba Valley school community is very fortunate to have these dedicated and exceptional teachers guiding our young people. Well done to the teachers and performing arts staff: John Coulson, Rebecca Neale-Diversi, Jane Panetta, Nicole Sullivan, Paul Beradi, Rachel McMahon, Kathryn Wallace, Viola Wynne-Hoelscher and Alicia Gray. Thank you for inspiring and supporting the young people of our area to pursue their passions and realise their full potential. Finally, I would like to acknowledge all those people who made the StarQuest night possible. To the stage crew: well done for a great night and a great production. To all the performers: thank you for sharing your talents with your community. And to Mr Coulson: your energy and passion for performing arts is infectious and the students of Narangba Valley State High School are especially fortunate to have you as a guide and mentor. Well done to everyone at Narangba Valley State High School. You have impressed us. Question put—That the House do now adjourn. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 9.57 pm.

ATTENDANCE

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