PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Hansard Home Page: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/hansard/ E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (07) 3406 7314 Fax: (07) 3210 0182

Subject FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT Page Wednesday, 11 November 2009

SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS ...... 3233 Remembrance Day ...... 3233 Council of Australian Governments Meeting ...... 3233 PETITION ...... 3233 MINISTERIAL PAPERS ...... 3233 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 3233 Remembrance Day ...... 3233 Community Cabinets, Barcaldine and Longreach ...... 3234 South-East Queensland Storms ...... 3235 Maternity Services ...... 3235 Ethanol ...... 3236 Tabled paper: Report, by Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, titled ‘Public Benefit Test—Legislation of a 5% Ethanol Mandate Final Report 2009’...... 3236 Community Memorials Restoration Program; Online and Communications Council ...... 3237 Geothermal Energy ...... 3237 Sunshine Coast Institute of TAFE ...... 3238 National State Emergency Services Week ...... 3238 Aramac-Torrens Creek Road ...... 3239 Queensland Fisheries Strategy 2009-2014 ...... 3239 Local Government Reform ...... 3240 Pool Safety ...... 3240 Taxi Compliance Unit ...... 3241 National Recycling Week ...... 3241 Electrical Apprentice Safety Pilot Program ...... 3242 Mount Gravatt State High School Fire ...... 3242 Pyjama Foundation, Volunteer of the Year Award ...... 3242 Schoolies Week ...... 3243 Disability Services; Transition From School Program ...... 3243 Indigenous Queenslanders ...... 3244 NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 3244 Rural and Regional Hospitals, Funding ...... 3244

J MICKEL N J LAURIE L J OSMOND SPEAKER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER Table of Contents — Wednesday, 11 November 2009

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 3244 Visitors to Public Gallery; Remembrance Day ...... 3244 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 3244 Electoral Funding Reform ...... 3244 Capital Works Program ...... 3245 Integrity and Accountability Framework ...... 3246 Electoral Funding Reform ...... 3246 Traveston Dam ...... 3247 Taxation ...... 3247 Swine Flu ...... 3248 Citytrain ...... 3249 Green Army ...... 3249 REMEMBRANCE DAY ...... 3250 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 3250 Public Transport System ...... 3250 Kangaroo Meat Industry ...... 3250 Vietnamese Community, Memorial ...... 3251 Traffic Congestion ...... 3252 Social Housing ...... 3252 Tabled paper: Copy of an article, dated 11 November 2009, from Townsville Bulletin, titled ‘Ghettoverit!’...... 3253 Healthy Living ...... 3253 Maryborough Base Hospital ...... 3254 Clean Coal Technology ...... 3254 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...... 3255 Integrity and Accountability Framework ...... 3255 Lockyer Valley Cultural Centre ...... 3255 TRANSPORT OPERATIONS (ROAD USE MANAGEMENT—INTERLOCKS) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3256 First Reading ...... 3256 Tabled paper: Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Interlocks) Amendment Bill...... 3256 Tabled paper: Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Interlocks) Amendment Bill, explanatory notes. .3256 Second Reading ...... 3256 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...... 3258 ClimateQ ...... 3258 FAMILY (SURROGACY) BILL ...... 3258 First Reading ...... 3258 Tabled paper: Family (Surrogacy) Bill...... 3258 Tabled paper: Family (Surrogacy) Bill, explanatory notes...... 3258 Second Reading ...... 3258 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...... 3260 Surf Life Saving Queensland, Helicopter ...... 3260 Bligh Labor Government ...... 3260 Commonwealth Parliamentary Association ...... 3261 Toowoomba Second Range Crossing ...... 3261 Bruce Highway Upgrade ...... 3261 Child Safety, Resources ...... 3262 Pumicestone Electorate ...... 3262 Sunshine Coast Hospital ...... 3263 Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Cycle Centre ...... 3263 Shakespeare on Oxford Festival ...... 3264 STATE PENALTIES ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3264 Second Reading ...... 3264 Consideration in Detail ...... 3280 Clause 1, as read, agreed to...... 3280 Clause 2— ...... 3280 Tabled paper: Explanatory notes to Mr Dick’s amendments to the State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill...... 3280 Clause 2, as amended, agreed to...... 3280 Clause 3, as read, agreed to...... 3280 Clause 4, as read, agreed to...... 3281 Clauses 5 and 6, as read, agreed to...... 3281 Clause 7, as read, agreed to...... 3282 Clauses 8 and 9, as read, agreed to...... 3282 Clause 10, as read, agreed to...... 3283 Clause 11, as read, agreed to...... 3283 Clause 12, as read, agreed to...... 3284 Clause 13, as read, agreed to...... 3284 Clauses 14 to 29, as read, agreed to...... 3284 Insertion of new clause—...... 3284 Amendment agreed to...... 3285 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 11 November 2009

Clauses 30 to 34, as read, agreed to...... 3285 Clause 35, as read, agreed to...... 3285 Clauses 36 to 38, as read, agreed to...... 3285 Clause 39—...... 3285 Clause 39, as amended, agreed to...... 3286 Clauses 40 to 47, as read, agreed to...... 3286 Clause 48, as read, agreed to...... 3286 Clauses 49 to 71, as read, agreed to...... 3286 Insertion of new clause— ...... 3286 Amendment agreed to...... 3286 Clauses 72 to 75, as read, agreed to...... 3286 Insertion of new clause— ...... 3287 Amendment agreed to...... 3287 Clauses 76 to 100, as read, agreed to...... 3287 Insertion of new clause— ...... 3287 Amendment agreed to...... 3287 Clauses 101 to 129, as read, agreed to...... 3287 Insertion of new clause— ...... 3287 Amendment agreed to...... 3287 Clauses 130 to 149, as read, agreed to...... 3287 Clauses 150 to 152— ...... 3288 Amendment agreed to...... 3288 Clauses 153 to 158, as read, agreed to...... 3288 Insertion of new clauses— ...... 3288 Amendment agreed to...... 3288 Clauses 159 to 197, as read, agreed to...... 3288 Clause 198, as read, agreed to...... 3289 Clauses 199 to 213, as read, agreed to...... 3289 Clause 214, as read, agreed to...... 3289 Clauses 215 to 238, as read, agreed to...... 3289 Third Reading ...... 3289 Long Title ...... 3289 FAIR WORK (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) AND OTHER PROVISIONS BILL ...... 3290 Second Reading ...... 3290 MOTION ...... 3305 Rural and Regional Hospitals, Funding ...... 3305 FAIR WORK (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) AND OTHER LEGISLATION BILL ...... 3314 Second Reading ...... 3314 Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time...... 3320 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3320 Consideration in Detail ...... 3320 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS ...... 3320 FAIR WORK (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) AND OTHER PROVISIONS BILL ...... 3321 Consideration in Detail ...... 3321 Clauses 1 to 111, as read, agreed to...... 3321 Schedules 1 and 2, as read, agreed to...... 3321 Third Reading ...... 3321 Long Title ...... 3321 TRADE MEASUREMENT LEGISLATION REPEAL BILL ...... 3321 Second Reading ...... 3321 Consideration in Detail ...... 3330 Clauses 1 to 18, as read, agreed to...... 3330 Schedule, as read, agreed to...... 3330 Third Reading ...... 3330 Long Title ...... 3330 ADJOURNMENT ...... 3330 Italian Catholic Federation Aspley-Geebung ...... 3330 Centenary Rowing Club ...... 3331 Bowen Family ...... 3331 Tabled paper: Photograph of gravestone of Lady Bowen...... 3332 Woodridge State High School; Woodridge State School ...... 3332 Concrete Plant, Kunda Park; Traveston Dam ...... 3332 Loganholme State School ...... 3333 Public Transport ...... 3334 Coolnwynpin State School ...... 3334 Bushfire Preparedness ...... 3334 St Thomas’ Catholic Primary School ...... 3335 ATTENDANCE ...... 3336 11 Nov 2009 Legislative Assembly 3233 WEDNESDAY, 11 NOVEMBER 2009

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

SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS

Remembrance Day Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, today is Remembrance Day, a day when we reflect on the past sacrifices and service of those who have died or suffered in war. As a mark of respect on this significant day of commemoration, at 11 am I will ask all honourable members to observe two minutes silence as we join with others around the state and the nation to show our gratitude to Australia’s brave service men and women, past and present, and all those who lost their lives. Council of Australian Governments Meeting Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, I wish to advise that Parliament House has been chosen as the venue for the next Council of Australian Governments meeting to be held on Monday, 7 December 2009. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet have booked most of the function and meeting rooms on the parliamentary precinct for the purpose of the meeting. The Members’ Dining Room will also be required for use. Preparations for the meeting will take place over the preceding weekend and the relevant rooms have been booked from 7.30 am to 6 pm on the day of the meeting. In line with previous arrangements for major functions—for example, the Governor’s swearing in—it is proposed to try to reduce the number of staff on the precinct on 7 December by encouraging non-essential staff where possible to make alternative arrangements. Similarly, if members do not have essential business here on the day they may wish to consider alternative arrangements. If members have any concerns with these proposed arrangements, please contact my office.

PETITION

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

Moreton Bay Marine Park Zoning Plan Dr Robinson, from 597 petitioners, requesting the House to amend the government’s Moreton Bay Marine Park Plan to allow recreational fishers to fish with one line per person in these fish-rich areas (the green zones); make available the science used in the decision to stop recreational fishing in the green zones of Moreton Bay, and to conduct a more rigorous and independent study of the fish stocks [1305]. Petition received.

MINISTERIAL PAPERS

The following ministerial papers were tabled— Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Dick)— 1306 Land Court of Queensland—Annual Report 2008-09 1307 Legal Services Commission—Annual Report 2008-09 1308 Legal Practitioners Admissions Board—Annual Report 2008-09 1309 Misconduct Tribunals—Annual Report 2008-09

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Remembrance Day Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.34 am): Today, 11 November, is one of the most important dates on our national calendar. It is a day when we pause to reflect for a moment on our national identity and the important events that have formed our history; a day when we stop to pay our respects; a day when, first and foremost, we remember. 3234 Ministerial Statements 11 Nov 2009

At 11 am today Australians everywhere will pause for one minute’s silence to remember, to reflect and to give our thanks for the sacrifices made by thousands of men and women in our defence forces. These are the thousands who have given their lives, suffered and served in military conflicts over the past 100 years. Remembrance Day is an opportunity to pay our respects to these brave men and women and their families whose often harrowing experiences of war allowed, and continue to allow, Australians to enjoy a peaceful and prosperous future. Armistice Day, or Remembrance Day as we now know it, was first celebrated in the hope that the Great War, World War I, would bring an end to all wars. As we all know, this sadly has not been the case, and today we reflect upon the sacrifice and the loss from all conflict over the past 10 decades. These are losses that we continue to be reminded of on a far too frequent basis as conflicts continue in pockets around the globe and Australians continue to bravely dedicate themselves to the ultimate quest for peace. Since 2001, 12 Australians have been killed in conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a further 83 have been seriously wounded. It is for these Australians and those thousands who they followed that services will be held at 11 am today at war memorials in towns and suburbs across Queensland. It is imperative that we continue to remember and, importantly, that we instill an ongoing sense of pride and remembrance in our future generations. It is imperative in that regard that we stage events and memorialise our fallen soldiers. To that end, today I want to make two funding announcements. Firstly, the Canberra based Memorials Development Committee has been tasked by the federal government to elicit support to plan, design, construct and dedicate memorials to World War I and World War II within the National Triangle of our national capital. Queensland can feel very proud that Queensland based design architect Mr Richard Kirk has designed the 20-metre-tall twin structures that are destined to sit on Anzac Parade in Canberra. The committee is now seeking funding to build the memorials. I am pleased to advise the House that the Queensland government and the Returned & Services League of Queensland have joined forces to make an initial contribution of $50,000 each towards the construction of these important memorials. In discussing this with the head of the Queensland RSL, Mr Doug Formby, I sought his view about whether this would be a priority for the Queensland branch. His view was that the Queensland branch, like Australians everywhere, wants to see these two world wars appropriately commemorated in our national capital. We agreed to put in an initial funding contribution on a dollar-for-dollar basis. It is an initial allocation. These are projects which will take many years to complete. I am sure that governments in the future will also be looking to make additional contributions. Our government has also resolved that it is important to increase its contribution to the RSL for the annual Anzac Day parade. Those of us who have been attending services either in our local areas or here in the state capital know that these parades have become larger and larger events. That is a very good thing. But it does put extra burden on the organisers. So I am pleased to say that in 2010 we will increase our current funding of $25,000 to $30,000 and add further $5,000 increases each year over the following four years. We will almost double the current amount of funding. Remembrance Day is a critical opportunity for all of us to pause and to remember each of the courageous Australians who never made it home. Their name liveth forevermore. Lest we forget. Community Cabinets, Barcaldine and Longreach Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.38 am): Our government had a very successful community cabinet in Barcaldine and Longreach on 1 and 2 November. On behalf of our government, I would like to thank the people of Barcaldine and Longreach for their warm hospitality and their welcome into their communities. Over 250 people came along to the Sunday forum at the Barcaldine Shire Hall and over 90 people met formally with me or with at least one cabinet minister. That is an increase of more than a 65 per cent on the most recent previous community cabinets in the area. When I arrived in Barcaldine I was able to join the Minister for Main Roads in opening stage 1 of a $1.75 million upgrade on the Capricorn Highway to improve access to the new Tree of Knowledge Memorial. These roadworks will not only provide safe access for pedestrians and tourists visiting the unique memorial but will also ensure this section of the road continues to serve highway traffic. I am very pleased, acknowledging the importance of roads in this part of Queensland, to announce that as a result of discussions at the community cabinet our government will be contributing a further $5 million towards the sealing of the Aramac-Torrens Creek Road in the region. In Barcaldine I met with Mayor Rob Chandler, who advised me that there would be a shortfall of $10 million to complete the sealing of this road under its commitments to the federal government’s AusLink program. This project, which began in 2007, is to widen and seal 123 kilometres of the road in six stages, resulting in a fully sealed link between Aramac and the Flinders Highway at Torrens Creek. Our government has 11 Nov 2009 Ministerial Statements 3235 given a commitment to fund 50 per cent of the additional cost in partnership with the council, so that is a very good outcome for local people. We will work closely with the council and no doubt the local member to assist them to raise the balance of the funds. This funding will ensure that sealing work can continue in 2010, getting more of the road sealed and keeping local jobs in the community. I was also very pleased to be able to advise the people of Barcaldine and Blackall that QantasLink has agreed to return the third air service to Blackall and Barcaldine following upgrades to the local airports that were made possible by joint funding between our government and the respective councils. We all know about the tyranny of distance in places in Western Queensland, and this is a very important part of the lifeblood of those communities. Again, I thank the communities of Barcaldine and Longreach for their welcome and I take the opportunity again to thank the local member for Gregory, Vaughan Johnson, for the assistance of his electorate office which facilitated meetings for people who did want to see a minister. I got a lot of very positive feedback about his electorate staff, so I ask him to please pass that on.

South-East Queensland Storms Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.41 am): Just under one year ago South-East Queensland experienced the full force of nature’s fury. Three storms in five days left a path of destruction that no-one could have anticipated, battering communities in Brisbane, Ipswich and Toowoomba. Around 230,000 homes and businesses lost power and more than 4,000 homes were left with storm damage. Schools in affected areas were closed and mobile and landline communications were disrupted. Tragically, two lives were lost and our thoughts are with their families and loved ones as this very sad anniversary approaches. The first and most devastating of these storms hit The Gap on 16 November, with winds topping 176 kilometres per hour. I visited the storm zone in the aftermath along with the local member, Kate Jones, the Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, and the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Campbell Newman. I think I can speak for all of us when I say that we were struck by the extent of the devastation. Homes were destroyed, roofs had been ripped off and trees and powerlines were down everywhere. It was hard to imagine how the mess could be cleaned up and how people’s lives could be restored. There is no doubt that this was a traumatic event which impacted deeply on the lives of those who lived through it. But in the midst of such devastation there was a very positive side—the triumph of the Queensland spirit. In the days after the event, emergency services crews came in from all over Queensland and they worked around the clock to get the job done. Today I want to again acknowledge the remarkable efforts of those Queenslanders who contributed to the recovery. To the SES workers, the fire crews, the police force personnel, Energex, St John’s Ambulance, Red Cross, Salvation Army, Lifeline and the many others: your efforts will never be forgotten. A year on, so much progress has been made and the speed with which those involved have made things happen is a tribute to them. Our government has led the rebuilding effort, and this could not have been done without the work of insurers, local councils and others. The storm recovery task force set up to oversee South-East Queensland’s recovery effort reports that of the 262 properties that were unlivable only 15 remain in that category and of the 1,316 properties that were unlivable while undergoing repair only 15 remain of that category. We will not stop until the job has been completely done. The task force is still very much in operation. It has been overseen with a great sense of diligence by the Minister for Public Works, and I thank him for his efforts and the efforts of his people. I also take the opportunity to thank all of the mayors of South-East Queensland who have been working in partnership with the task force and with the state government to ensure that all of the work that needed to be done was done. The task force, as I say, is still very much in operation and we will expect a final report at the end of November.

Maternity Services Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Health) (9.44 am): The Bligh government is modernising health services for mothers and babies. In modern Queensland, health care goes far beyond the delivery room. The Universal Postnatal Contact Service aims to ensure all Queensland mothers receive a follow-up contact from a health professional after the birth of a baby. In May 2008 the Premier launched universal postnatal contact pilot programs in Cairns, Townsville, Nambour, Gold Coast, Logan and Toowoomba. This initiative ensures the best outcomes for mothers and birthing families. The service provides universal antenatal assessment for key risk factors that impact on the health of both mother and baby—tobacco, drug and alcohol use, psychosocial wellbeing, domestic violence and depression. It also provides enhancement of community partnerships and service networks to ensure appropriate referral for families identified at risk; greater integration of maternity and child health services for enhanced continuity of care between hospital and community settings, including establishment of newborn and family drop-in services; and expansion, upgrading and integration of the Child Health Line with 13HEALTH. 3236 Ministerial Statements 11 Nov 2009

So I was delighted to hear about a Wynnum mum’s positive experience with the service. Nicola Bachet recently telephoned 13HEALTH because her five-month-old daughter Olivia was having trouble feeding. Ms Bachet was immediately transferred to a child health nurse who talked her through her baby’s distress and was able to identify her symptoms quickly. It was the middle of the night and Ms Bachet says that nurse Judith Dickson was a godsend. Ms Bachet is one of approximately 10,000 families who contacted 13HEALTH about child health issues in the past six months, and that is just one of the programs delivered by the Bligh government to modernise maternity services in Queensland. An evaluation of outcomes achieved in the first six months of implementation of the whole universal postnatal contact program indicates that very high rates of postnatal contact were achieved— an average of 89 per cent. Our Mums and Bubs election commitment will deliver almost $42 million over three years for midwifery-led models of care in nine rural and regional areas, new newborn and family drop-in services and expansion of neonatal services at Townsville Hospital. During 2009 we have opened more newborn and family drop-in services—in Mackay, Hervey Bay and Mount Isa. Clinics in Bundaberg, Caboolture, Kingaroy, Longreach, Proserpine and Emerald will commence in the next few months. Queensland Health currently has birth centres operating in the Townsville, Mackay, Royal Brisbane and Women’s and Gold Coast hospitals. An additional $1 million capital funding was provided in 2009-10 for a new birth centre at Toowoomba Hospital. Planning and refurbishment is underway, with services due to commence in 2010. When it comes on line in 2010, it will have capacity for 160 births a year. The Bligh government is expanding birthing services across the state and the new Gold Coast University Hospital will also provide access for more families to birth centre care. Townsville and Mackay have plans to expand their birth centre/midwifery group practice capacity. Queensland is participating in the development of a new National Maternity Services Plan, and I will be discussing this project with other state, territory and Commonwealth health ministers at a meeting in Adelaide this Friday. The Australian government, through the Improving Maternity Services package, recently announced subsidised medical indemnity for eligible midwives working in collaborative arrangements in hospitals and healthcare settings. Queensland Health has made complementary commitments including $29.7 million over four years for the Universal Postnatal Contact Service initiative; $9 million over four years for rural maternity services enhancement; $3 million for additional birth centres in Townsville and Toowoomba; $7 million over four years for the Queensland Centre for Mothers and Babies; $6 million over five years towards the National Perinatal Depression Initiative; $53 million for more neonatal intensive care resources; and $30 million for Indigenous maternal and child healthcare enhancements, including investments under the Indigenous early childhood national partnerships agreement. Queensland is continuing to experience rapid population growth, with 35 per cent of growth attributed to natural increase, and the Bligh government is committed to modernising and strengthening maternity services across the state to cater for this boom.

Ethanol Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development) (9.48 am): The Bligh government has a longstanding policy of introducing a mandate for ethanol in Queensland by the end of 2010. We embraced the policy because it embodied our vision of a cleaner, greener Queensland and encourages job creation, particularly in regional Queensland. In the 21st century we need to identify renewable fuel sources that will minimise harm to the environment. Today I table the public benefit test that the government commissioned on the ethanol mandate. Tabled paper: Report, by Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, titled ‘Public Benefit Test— Legislation of a 5% Ethanol Mandate Final Report 2009’ [1310]. An ethanol mandate will support the development of a fuel ethanol industry in Queensland and lay a platform for second generation technology. It assesses a minimum five per cent ethanol content requirement in the total volume of regular unleaded petrol sold in Queensland from 31 December 2010. The ethanol mandate, as proposed in the PBT, will add value to Queensland’s sugarcane and sorghum commodities by generating an immediate demand for 183 million litres of fuel ethanol annually. The mandate would provide a clear market signal for further investment in the ethanol industry to boost supply in response to the increased demand. The government has undertaken extensive consultation with stakeholders. The government is committed to maintaining choice for consumers. The proposal would apply the mandate in such a manner that regular unleaded petrol will remain widely available. The proposed ethanol mandate would apply to all petrol wholesalers and petrol retailers who own 10 or more sites. This will capture 73 per cent of the volume of the Queensland petrol market but 43 per cent of sites, allowing for consumer choice. Those petrol retailers best placed to undertake the site infrastructure upgrades will deliver the mandate, with smaller operations to continue without mandated sales. 11 Nov 2009 Ministerial Statements 3237

The proposed ethanol mandate will not require that every litre of petrol sold contain ethanol. Instead, the mandate will be applied to the total volume of petrol sales. Premium unleaded petrol will be excluded from the ethanol mandate to ensure that there is a choice of unblended fuels—regular unleaded and premium unleaded—for servicing vehicles that are not compatible with ethanol blends. It is estimated that, at most, around 25 per cent of motorists would be in cars not compatible with ethanol blended fuels—a key factor in our proposal to have 43 per cent of sites outside the mandate’s application. The proposed ethanol mandate is aimed at diversifying Queensland’s fuel mix to include a greater share of renewable fuels and reduce dependence on petroleum based fuels. As we confront climate change, this proposal assists us now and, more importantly, into the future through providing a platform for further research and development in next-generation technology. It provides job opportunities, especially in regional Queensland, and provides new opportunities for farmers, especially those in the sugar and sorghum industries. The analysis released today sets out the benefits and the challenges and the opportunity we have as a state to move forward to a cleaner, greener future. Community Memorials Restoration Program; Online and Communications Council Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Information and Communication Technology) (9.51 am): It is fitting on this auspicious day that I inform the House of the valuable contribution that the Community Memorials Restoration Program is making throughout Queensland. In 2009-10, $600,000 is now available to local government and community groups to restore and renovate local historic memorials and monuments, with a particular focus this year on war memorials. Through the program, the Queensland government provides dollar-for-dollar grants of up to $25,000 to restore and repair significant local memorials while up to $15,000 is offered for cemetery related projects. Since the program started in 2004, the Queensland government has provided $2.9 million to restore more than 240 memorials across Queensland. In that time, the program’s funding has supported the restoration and repair of monuments, including memorials, honour boards, historical markers, community halls, plaques, fountains, statues, memorial gardens and cenotaphs. For example, the government contributed $18,500 to help refurbish and relandscape the RSL war memorial in Ashgrove, in the electorate of the Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability. Ms Jones: Hear, hear! Mr SCHWARTEN: I thank the minister for her leadership in that project. As well, the government allocated funds to assist with the restoration of one of Queensland’s significant and unique memorials, the ‘A’ Battery Memorial in Toowong Cemetery. Earlier this month the bell of the Mother of Good Counsel Church in Innisfail rang again for the first time since Cyclone Larry extensively damaged the church back in March 2006. The government contributed $19,250 towards the restoration of the church bell and its ringing mechanism. Recently, the program was expanded to assist local government and community groups undertake projects to research, document, reinstate, and restore cemeteries. Flinders Shire Council and Moreton Bay Regional Council are among those councils that took advantage of the funding to record and digitise historical records of their local cemeteries. The Queensland government also established an online war memorials register in April this year in time for Anzac Day. The Department of Public Works developed the online register not only to further honour Queenslanders who died in the service of their country but also to serve as an excellent resource for historians. I am pleased to say that there are now 1,029 war memorials listed on the site. These are essential programs that continue to honour the fallen or help preserve Queensland’s history and I encourage local government and community organisations to take advantage of this latest round of funding. I would also like to inform the honourable members gathered here that I will be attending the 17th Online and Communications Council meeting at Alice Springs tomorrow. The Australian government, state and territory ministers and members of the Australian Local Government Association will gather in Central Australia to discuss information and communication issues, including progress on the National Broadband Network. I look forward to reporting back on this meeting at the next sitting of parliament. Geothermal Energy Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade) (9.54 am): The Bligh government’s commitment to renewable energy is well known and well documented. We are also encouraging the growth of local industries involved in renewable energy exploration and development. This morning at the Australian Geothermal Energy Conference I announced the Bligh government’s Coastal Geothermal Energy Initiative, which is investigating potential sources of geothermal energy along the eastern coast of Queensland. This targeted drilling program focuses on areas close to existing transmission lines and population centres where there is significant 3238 Ministerial Statements 11 Nov 2009 demand for electricity. The Queensland government has committed some $5 million from the $50 million Queensland Renewable Energy Fund administered by my Office of Clean Energy to finance this program. This is an Australian first—the first state government program designed to directly target information gaps in data coverage for geothermal potential along the eastern coastal region of Australia. The program aims to collect temperature and heat flow data to eventually provide a full map of geothermal potential across the entire state. The Coastal Geothermal Energy Initiative will also provide additional background data to assist industry in identifying potential geothermal energy targets for exploration. Sources of geothermal energy identified near transmission lines have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through increased use of geothermal energy for power generators. This will also assist in the growth of a diverse economy and create new job opportunities in the state. The Coastal Geothermal Energy Initiative is a key element of the Bligh government’s ClimateSmart 2050 strategy, which aims to develop cleaner sources of energy to protect the environment and create a sustainable future for our state. Collaboration with the Geothermal Energy Centre of Excellence at the University of Queensland is providing the basis for additional research into the geothermal potential of the state and delivering on the Smart State philosophy through education, skills and innovation. Government scientists are now addressing drill targets. Once these technical assessments have been completed, we will call for tenders early next year. Drilling is expected to commence in July 2010 and about 35 holes will be drilled to a depth of between 300 and 320 metres. This is a practical demonstration of the Bligh government’s commitment to a cleaner future for Queensland. Sunshine Coast Institute of TAFE Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training) (9.56 am): Queenslanders enjoy some of the world’s most spectacular natural environments. They are a huge part of both our lifestyle and economy. But our environment and lifestyle are under increasing pressure from our growing population and climate change. That is why the Bligh government is investing $196 million in ‘ClimateQ: toward a greener Queensland’ to rise to the challenge of tackling climate change. We are also taking a closer look at how to encourage Queenslanders to lead a sustainable lifestyle. I am pleased to inform the House that construction is set to start on the $10.6 million state-of- the-art Sustainability Interpretive Centre at the Mooloolaba campus of the Sunshine Coast Institute of TAFE. While the global recession means that we have been forced to make some tough choices, protecting our environment for now and future generations is non-negotiable. The project has received $7 million through the federal government’s national infrastructure stimulus package, Training Infrastructure Investment for Tomorrow, while the state government will contribute $3.6 million. The campus will deliver first-class facilities to showcase and promote the importance of social, economic and environmental sustainability. The Bligh government is committed to delivering infrastructure and this project, which should be completed by mid-2010, will create more than 100 jobs during construction. It will have flexible learning spaces and a resources centre that will help educate the Sunshine Coast community and workforce on sustainability best practices. The Sunshine Coast TAFE will be positioned as a leader in educating the next generation of forward thinkers about sustainability issues. The centre will include an interpretative experience area, which will showcase sustainability methods in areas as diverse as plumbing, hairdressing and creative arts. While the TAFE currently offers a diploma in sustainability, the new centre will see sustainable practices incorporated into all of the TAFE’s programs and working methods. Upon completion, the Sunshine Coast will have a magnificent facility to lay the groundwork for sustainability practices with positive benefits for current and future generations. National State Emergency Services Week Hon. NS ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services) (10.00 am): This week is National SES Week, which provides a perfect opportunity to highlight the dedication and hard work of our State Emergency Service volunteers. Across the state there are currently around 6,500 SES volunteers in 342 groups. I take the opportunity to acknowledge and thank local governments across the state for the strong partnership they have with the state to support and provide resources and equipment to our SES volunteers. Last financial year these volunteers undertook close to 110,000 hours of front-line operational duties—an impressive amount by any standard. In the past three months alone there have been approximately 380 activations and over 8,600 operational hours performed by SES members. A majority of this work is undertaken in the midst of a natural disaster, for example the floods in Ingham following tropical cyclones Charlotte and Ellie, the ferocious storms in The Gap, the aftermath of Cyclone Hamish as it tracked down the coastline in March or the recent bushfires in Rockhampton and across the state. 11 Nov 2009 Ministerial Statements 3239

However, SES volunteers also undertake many hours of work assisting at major community events and in search and rescue activities. Someone coined the phrase ‘Orange Angels’ to describe SES volunteers and that description is spot-on. It takes a unique person to be an SES volunteer, a person who is selfless and willing to put their own needs on hold to assist others. A number of events are being held across the state this week to recognise all SES volunteers and to reward those individuals and SES groups who have gone above and beyond the call of duty. I thank those members from all sides of the chamber who have been able to support those activities. I also urge honourable members to participate in the annual ‘Wear Orange to Work Day’ on Friday which draws its inspiration from the distinctive orange uniforms SES volunteers wear in the field. The Bligh government recognises the importance of SES volunteers. That is why we went to the election with a commitment, as part of our Supporting our Heroes policy, to boost the resources of SES groups across the state to enhance their capacity to respond to calls for assistance. This year we will deliver 20 additional vehicles, four flood boats and two rescue trailers as part of our commitment to provide 93 additional vehicles, 19 flood boats and four trailers over four years. On behalf of all members, I publicly thank our SES volunteers for the important role they play in supporting communities in need.

Aramac-Torrens Creek Road Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads) (10.02 am): As the Premier said, the Bligh government held its 19th community cabinet in Barcaldine and Longreach last week. It was a great opportunity to meet with local community members about the issues that are important to them. I am always pleased when I can return from a community cabinet with a win for the local community. Today, I join with the Premier in announcing that the Bligh government will be contributing a further $5 million towards the sealing of the Aramac-Torrens Creek Road. Along with the Premier I met with Barcaldine Mayor Rob Chandler at the community cabinet and he advised that there would be about a $10 million shortfall to complete the sealing of this road under their commitments to the federal government’s AusLink program. As the Premier advised the House, this project began in 2007 and is to widen and seal 123 kilometres of the road in six stages resulting in a fully sealed link between Aramac and the Flinders Highway at Torrens Creek. As the Premier said, our funding will ensure the sealing can continue until 2010, getting more of the road sealed and keeping local jobs in the community. Locals tell me that when the road between Aramac and Torrens Creek is fully sealed, it will be easier for Aramac residents to travel to Townsville than to Rockhampton. With all due respect to my colleague the member for Rockhampton, this will be good for Townsville businesses and service providers. While also in the region I gave a commitment to the member for Gregory to host a meeting of the mayors of the Central Highlands, Isaac and Barcaldine regional councils in Emerald in early 2010 to discuss road issues. This follows a similar meeting that the member for Mount Isa arranged in Winton earlier this year, also attended by the member for Gregory. The member for Gregory understands the importance of our road network to the people of his electorate and particularly the jobs that our road- building program creates and protects locally. One of the main topics on our agenda at Emerald will be to discuss the impacts of the mining industry on the road networks in the Central Highlands and Central West region. It will give local councils an opportunity to plan the best way of meeting the road network challenges to support the vital mining industry in these areas. I will also inspect the Alpha-Clermont Road, which is already being affected by mining exploration in the Galilee Basin, to personally gauge the potential impacts that could arise from full-scale mining near Alpha. I thank the member for Gregory for his invitation and his support for building better roads for Queenslanders.

Queensland Fisheries Strategy 2009-2014 Hon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Rural and Regional Queensland) (10.04 am): Over many years, a vast amount of rules, regulations, limits and permit conditions have built up to cover fisheries management. In fact, fisheries legislation in Queensland now totals 1,375 pages. While this has helped to protect our resource, we cannot continue with this approach. It is too complex, too cumbersome and too inflexible. On Monday cabinet approved the Queensland Fisheries Strategy 2009-2014, which sets the future direction for fisheries in this state. One of the major aims of this strategy is to reduce the complexity associated with fisheries management while also ensuring sustainability. We need to raise awareness of responsible fishing through education and training. We need to be more flexible by using guidelines and codes of practice and cooperative or co-management arrangements rather than increasing the number of inflexible rules and regulations. This will involve a partnership with industry so that the responsibilities and obligations for sustainable management are negotiated and shared. 3240 Ministerial Statements 11 Nov 2009

Aside from reducing complexity, our new fisheries strategy emphasises three key areas: protecting habitat, managing harvest and maximising the value of our Queensland fisheries. To secure fish populations into the future we must carefully conserve and manage fish habitats from key threats. With more than 1,500 commercial fishing licences and about 750,000 recreational fishers in Queensland, managing harvest will always be a challenge. Maximising the value of Queensland’s fisheries is important in securing the long-term profitability of the state’s fisheries industries and our strategy has a strong focus on industry development. Aquaculture will be a key focus in this area. With global demand for seafood burgeoning and wild-catch fisheries struggling to meet demand, aquaculture is gaining an increasing share of global markets. We must also enhance the recreational fishing experience for both Queenslanders and those who come from interstate and abroad. Input into the strategy from our stakeholders has been extremely important and they will be a key to our future success. Our new fisheries strategy is strong, green and helping to create a diverse economy while protecting Queensland’s fisheries resources.

Local Government Reform Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships) (10.07 am): I am pleased to announce today that the Bligh government is embarking on another Australian first with a review about to get underway into statutes with implications for local councils. Unsurprisingly, there are many provisions in our various acts and pieces of subordinate legislation that councils as modern entities have to navigate. When the department did the consultation on the old Local Government Act 1993 some councils told us that they have difficulties working across the many different pieces of state legislation that relate to their business. They also noted that at times they had difficulty with different definitions and other legislative requirements covered in different statutes. For example, there are different rules governing the right of entry into properties: different rules, different notice times, fines and penalties. Well, we are listening. We will be simplifying the regulatory system for local government. This will undoubtedly lead to significant administrative savings for councils and for ratepayers and businesses, too. The review will assess the currency and consistency of existing state statutes that apply to local government, reduce unnecessary and excessive legislative requirements, and set about streamlining administrative and procurement processes. This review’s practical outcomes will be the repeal of duplicated, redundant and irrelevant provisions and rationalisation of similar provisions across around 200 acts. There will also be a consolidation of powers, accountabilities and responsibilities. The review will be completed by the end of 2011 with the Department of Premier and Cabinet and Treasury on the steering committee for this important project. No doubt this important initiative will contribute to the $150 million cost reduction strategy earmarked by the Treasurer under the regulatory simplification plan. We are driving legislative reform, increasing efficiency and effectiveness in local government, and ensuring there is sustainability through better performance management and reporting. The Bligh government is building the strongest local government sector in the country, and I do indeed commend our latest local government reform initiative to the House.

Pool Safety Hon. SJ HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) (10.09 am): On Sunday the Bligh government gave away 150,000 Australian Resuscitation Council approved CPR signs to Sunday Mail readers. The signs, which feature accredited CPR procedure in both words and pictures, were provided free of charge. The initiative followed the state government’s announcement of the toughest pool safety laws in the country, the first stage of which will be in place from 1 December. Pool safety is paramount in the lead-up to summer. Last year alone eight children under the age of four drowned in Queensland pools, and on Sunday and Monday two children were involved in separate immersion incidents in public pools. I encourage all Queenslanders to ask themselves, ‘Am I equipped to deal with an immersion incident?’ Learning CPR is an invaluable tool. I am enrolled to undertake a St John Ambulance CPR course in early December and I strongly encourage all Queenslanders to do the same. The Bligh government is committed to pool safety. Following the release of the strict new pool safety laws to be rolled out in two stages, a free educational pool safety and building code roadshow will take place between 23 November and 3 December. Free education seminars will be held at nine locations between Cairns and Coolangatta. The roadshow will offer information on proposed changes to swimming pool safety laws for new pools and a proposed new code for swimming pool barriers. Information will also be provided on transport noise, corridors and a range of other building code matters. Session times and locations are available online and anyone can attend. 11 Nov 2009 Ministerial Statements 3241

The CPR sign giveaway and the roadshow follow a nine-month review of Queensland’s pool safety laws by an independent committee that included the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors, the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian, Kidsafe Australia, the Queensland Injury Surveillance Unit and the Royal Life Saving Society of Australia. On 20 September the Bligh government released the committee’s 23 findings for strict new measures, including temporary fencing during pool construction, mandatory follow-up final inspections for pool fences, ongoing mandatory pool fence inspections at the point of sale and lease, a state-wide swimming pool register and the requirement that all pools display current cardiopulmonary resuscitation signs. All 23 recommendations will become law as part of the toughest overhaul of Queensland’s pool safety laws in some 20 years.

Taxi Compliance Unit Hon. RG NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (Minister for Transport) (10.11 am): I am committed to ensuring high customer service standards in the taxi industry. This year, upon becoming Minister for Transport, one of the earliest issues raised with me was community concern about a declining level of service in the taxi industry, particularly in South-East Queensland. Members will recall that I acted quickly to establish a hotline to receive community feedback and that I subsequently announced a multipronged program of taxi reforms. The taxi hotline was established on 11 May this year and received 385 complaints to the end of October. Over the same period there were about 15 million passenger journeys. The main areas of complaint to the hotline were that drivers did not know where they were going, drivers had difficulty communicating with passengers and that the taxis were unclean. I have established a Taxi Compliance Unit to increase roadworthiness inspections and licence checks across the taxi industry. By the end of October this year, a total of 1,109 taxis were intercepted in South-East Queensland by the Taxi Compliance Unit in these targeted activities. I am happy to advise that, despite our unprecedented level of investigations, there were no instances found of unlicensed or unauthorised drivers. On 1 November, one of the major elements of the reform package came into effect when two new standards, that drivers had to be at least 20 years of age and, more significantly, had to have a minimum of one year’s experience driving on Australian roads, came into effect. Finally, last week at the Australian Transport Council meeting of ministers, Queensland strongly supported the introduction of national licensing standards. These will provide for common high levels of taxidriver training, including English language proficiency across the country. It is expected that these standards will come into effect from July next year. These reforms are about customer service and safety standards and the Taxi Compliance Unit will continue to monitor the taxi industry and conduct further targeted compliance operations throughout the state.

National Recycling Week Hon. KJ JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability) (10.14 am): This week is National Recycling Week and, as the world turns its attention to international climate change talks next month, it is timely for Queenslanders and Australians to be reminded of some of the simple actions we can all take to contribute every day. More than 90 per cent of Queensland homes have access to kerbside recycling and the recovery of household items such as bottles, cans, paper and cardboard is steadily increasing as domestic recycling has become second nature. However, we can do better. We still only recycle around 40 per cent of the waste we generate. On average, each Queenslander throws out nearly two tonnes of waste every year. All this waste would be enough to fill the Gabba to a height of 65 metres. The Bligh government is striving to help Queenslanders reduce their waste and recycle more, particularly while they are away from home. Around 50 per cent of recyclable material is discarded and turned into waste while Australians are away from their homes. Over the past 12 months, our Public Place Recycling program has been successfully rolling out across Queensland at events, major sporting stadiums, shopping centres and key locations like Fraser Island. Already, more than 60 organisations have partnered with the program. For instance, at Suncorp Stadium we have seen a 115 per cent increase per person in material being recycled since the introduction of the new Public Place Recycling bins and signs. More than 250 tonnes of recyclable material has been collected away from home since the Public Place Recycling program commenced in Queensland. This is equivalent to servicing more than 12,000 home wheelie bins. It represents more than three million litres of water saved and 100 tonnes of carbon dioxide not going into the atmosphere. Our government will build on this good work and will continue to expand it to other venues away from home, including workplaces and schools. Queenslanders will be seeing more of the red and yellow bins popping up across the state. I am also happy to advise the House that a decision to develop a national strategy to recycle electrical equipment such as TVs and PCs was reached at last week’s environment ministers’ meeting in Perth. Encouraging the reuse and recycling of resources to reduce waste is a key element of acting ‘green’ under our Q2 ambitions and the Bligh government is making good on this commitment. 3242 Ministerial Statements 11 Nov 2009

Electrical Apprentice Safety Pilot Program Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (10.17 am): Electrical safety is a prime concern for the Bligh government. Yesterday I outlined to the House some changes that have been made to improve safety for insulation installers and householders. Today I want to highlight an initiative that is improving safety for electrical apprentices—our electricians of the future. The Bligh government has been conducting a pilot program to raise safety awareness among apprentice electricians. This program was developed in response to the high number of electricians involved in serious electrical incidents in the past two years. There were 28 serious incidents involving electrical workers in the past two years, including two fatalities. The most recent fatality involved an electrical tradesperson who was only nine months out of his apprenticeship. Those are the tragedies that we are trying to avoid. Today I will meet with three fourth-year apprentices who have recently completed the 12-week electrical safety pilot program run by the Electrical Safety Office. Safety in the workplace is of paramount importance, especially in a trade where work is often conducted in close proximity to live wires. During the 12-week program, the apprentices have been working in the field with safety inspectors assisting with process audits, electrical installation verification and some safety investigations. The three apprentices have received invaluable experience working alongside experienced inspectors. When the apprentices embark on the next phase of their careers, they will be able to promote a stronger emphasis on electrical safety. The program, which has industry support, aims to help improve the apprentices’ knowledge and awareness of electrical safety and promote the role of the Electrical Safety Office. It is important that safe workplace practices are learnt at the start of a worker’s career and that is exactly what this program can achieve. Given the success of this program, the Electrical Safety Office will expand it next year, hosting a total of nine fourth-year apprentices for 12 weeks each. This initiative is a practical response to a significant industry issue and is part of the Bligh government’s aim of making Queensland a safer, stronger state. Mount Gravatt State High School Fire Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (10.18 am): Remembrance Day 2009 will certainly be remembered by the school community at Mount Gravatt State High School, who woke up this morning to find that parts of their school had been extensively damaged by fire. This morning I visited the school to see first-hand the extent of the damage and to provide my support to the principal, Mr Scott Steinhardt, and staff in getting the school back on its feet. I was left with two overall impressions from my visit today. My first impression was of the absolute devastation that fire wreaks. The damage at the school is quite serious as it has ripped the administrative heart out of the school, destroying the top floor of the school’s administration building, including the offices of the principal, the deputy principal and administrative and support staff. Secondly, and more importantly, I was impressed by the determination that is already being shown by the school community to overcome this setback. I want to thank the Minister for Education and Training, Geoff Wilson, and staff from Education Queensland, Q-Build, the Queensland Police Service and the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service for responding so quickly in the early hours of this morning and assessing whether the school was safe for staff and students today. I am pleased to report that the school is open today. It will be business as usual for the 100 staff members and 850 students, and particularly the Year 12 students who are currently undertaking their important end-of-year exams. They can rest assured that they will have the full backing and support of the state government in repairing the damage from the fire and having the school fully operational as quickly as possible. Pyjama Foundation, Volunteer of the Year Award Hon. PG REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Sport) (10.20 am): As Minister for Child Safety, I applaud the extraordinary commitment of foster and kinship carers, Child Safety Services staff and our many community partners. One of those valued partners is the Pyjama Foundation. Tonight the Pyjama Foundation is holding its fifth annual general meeting at the Parliamentary Annexe, and this follows on from its recent fifth birthday celebrations. As this House would be aware, this Brisbane based charity does an exceptional job through its literacy programs to create brighter futures for children who have suffered abuse or neglect. This is in no small part thanks to the commitment of founder and chief executive officer Bronwyn Sheehan—who won the title of 2009 Queensland Australian of the Year—and her pyjama angel volunteers across the state. Already the foundation has recruited and trained up to 1,000 pyjama angels who volunteer to read to more than 1,000 children in care across Queensland. These pyjama angels help with homework, play educational games or do puzzles, play music and sing or kick a ball outside—giving children in care the same opportunities as their school friends. 11 Nov 2009 Ministerial Statements 3243

Tonight at the foundation’s AGM, it will give me great pleasure to present two of these pyjama angels with the Pyjama Foundation Award for Volunteer of the Year. I sincerely congratulate Fern Ong of Warner and Penni Fyfe of McDowall on jointly winning this award which acknowledges their outstanding dedication since 2006 to helping children and young people in foster care develop literacy and numeracy skills. The Pyjama Foundation is a noble organisation that deserves and gets the support of the Bligh government. This financial year we have committed more than $215,000 to the Pyjama Foundation through joint funding from the Department of Communities and the Department of Education and Training. These funds will ensure the foundation’s Love of Learning Program will continue to reach more children in foster and kinship care across the state.

Schoolies Week

Hon. KL STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (Minister for Community Services and Housing and Minister for Women) (10.22 am): For many months, hundreds of volunteers have been working hard behind the scenes so that schoolies week celebrations are remembered for all the right reasons. They are planning and taking action now so that schoolies week activities run as smoothly and as safely as possible for school leavers and local communities.

The Bligh government is funding a number of organisations in regional Queensland to deliver vital safety and support services in schoolies week hot spots around Queensland—Magnetic Island, Airlie Beach, Yeppoon and the Gold Coast. Our community partners need to know that they can plan ahead with confidence and certainty. They need to know that they have the support and resources they need to keep schoolies and local communities safe and secure. The seniors of 2009 have a bright future in front of them, and the Bligh government is behind them every step of the way, delivering a brighter future.

I commend the role of volunteers in this year’s schoolies celebrations, particularly Red Frogs Australia. They will join an army of volunteers who will work around the clock, looking after young people and making sure they are safe. There will be safety strategies in place at venues across regional Queensland—registration for school leavers, wristbands to ensure genuine school leavers are easily identifiable, alcohol-free activities, late night and early morning food supplies, free bus travel to and from organised events, outreach services, and education and awareness campaigns. A key safety message this year urges school leavers to ‘be safe and watch your mates’.

Our safer schoolies initiative is taking young Queenslanders toward Q2, tomorrow’s Queensland, and a safer, more caring community. It is also helping to meet an election commitment to boost the proportion of volunteers in our community by 50 per cent. It is much more than a whole-of-government response; it is a shining example of what can be achieved when you work in a true partnership with local councils, volunteer organisations, community groups and local communities across the state. I commend the work that is being done so far to make schoolies week 2009 a week that will be remembered by school leavers for all the right reasons.

Disability Services; Transition From School Program

Hon. A PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Disability Services and Multicultural Affairs) (10.24 am): I have good news for Queensland. The Bligh government will increase its support for school leavers with a disability throughout Queensland to $4 million this financial year. We will now help even more young Queenslanders to access the jobs, care and support they need to build productive and rewarding lives after school. It will help 290 young Queenslanders this year—up from 260 last year. We want to ensure that more young Queenslanders with a disability get a service. I am pleased today to announce a new Transition from School Program to help young Queenslanders access education and training and to get a job. This new program will help young people with a disability throughout Queensland acquire skills in IT, communications and business. As these young people enter work, vacancies will be created for other students with a disability to enter the program. In the past, people would remain in the program for many years and this would prevent other young people with a disability from entering it. The existing Post School Services Program will continue to provide school leavers with important life and social skills, opening up new opportunities for social interaction. From Cape York to Coolangatta and inland through Central Queensland to the Darling Downs, young people with a disability will benefit from our efforts to build a more inclusive Queensland. Our extra $4 million to support school leavers is a further sign of the Bligh government’s commitment to building a modern Queensland—one which can be enjoyed by all Queenslanders. 3244 Questions Without Notice 11 Nov 2009

Indigenous Queenslanders Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships) (10.26 am): I have good news for Indigenous Queenslanders today. Queenslanders all surely understand that improving life outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is a job for all of us. Across the state, people are volunteering their energy, time and money to programs and events, bringing hope and opportunity to Indigenous people and communities. Queensland’s corporate citizens are also playing their part. Earlier this year international accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers helped five young people attend a camp hosted by the Binambi-Barambah Aboriginal Corporation. This wonderful initiative is the brainchild of Aboriginal elder Auntie Ruth Hegarty. For the past 15 years the holiday camps have been giving disadvantaged Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, as well as non-Indigenous, primary schoolchildren from Brisbane’s northside and the Sunshine Coast an opportunity to take part in the type of holiday fun most kids take for granted. The camps also teach kids about Indigenous culture through traditional games, songs and stories. The financial support from PWC enabled Binambi-Barambah to launch their junior leaders program, which gave five junior leaders, aged between 14 and 15, the opportunity to attend the camp and supervise and mentor the younger children. Increased supervision meant more children could attend the camp, while the responsibility of being a junior leader helped the leaders hone their own leadership skills. PWC has also helped the incorporated body Reconciliation Queensland by sharing expertise, providing governance support and assisting with strategic management. Reconciliation Queensland is the state’s peak reconciliation body, and its membership is growing, making PricewaterhouseCooper’s strategic assistance particularly valuable during this development phase. My department is collating information on what opportunities currently exist for companies wishing to engage in corporate social responsibility with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and organisations. This will enable us to connect interested companies with worthwhile programs and initiatives. I call on all of Queensland’s corporate citizens to think about how they can help bring about real and lasting change. Closing the gap is a big job—but, like any big job, it is a little easier if everyone pitches in and makes a contribution.

NOTICE OF MOTION

Rural and Regional Hospitals, Funding Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (10.29 am): I give notice that I shall move— That this House: Calls upon the government to commit to additional funding of rural and regional hospitals to alleviate the burden on families currently forced to travel to attend medical services at centralised health hubs.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Visitors to Public Gallery; Remembrance Day Mr SPEAKER: The schools and community groups visiting us today will include the Association of Independent Retirees, the Probus Club of Beaudesert, the Earnshaw State College in the electorate of Nudgee and the Ambrose State School in the electorate of Gladstone. Before I call question time, I remind all members that at 10.59 I will stop question time so that we can prepare ourselves for the two minutes silence.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Electoral Funding Reform Mr LANGBROEK (10.30 am): My first question without notice is to the Premier. I refer to the nearly $2 million of taxpayers’ funds the Labor government is currently using to defend its political decision to privatise assets. Will this be stopped or capped under the so-called electoral funding reforms, or will the Labor Party continue to have unlimited access to millions of dollars in taxpayer funded advertising in the lead-up to an election? 11 Nov 2009 Questions Without Notice 3245

Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. I draw the honourable member’s attention to the fact that we are not in an election campaign. An election has not been called and we are not in the period— Mr Seeney: That’s a shame. Ms BLIGH: Maybe it is. Mr Seeney: Your own branch wants one. I agree with them. I’m going to go and join. Ms BLIGH: For those of us who know both people, Tony Reeves and Di McCauley would be a very interesting group to get together. The proposed cap on electoral campaign spending would apply in an election campaign period. This is about putting some level playing field in place so that the current arms race that is occurring in election spending, particularly on television advertising, can be slowed and brought back to something that is much more reasonable. What we have been treated to in the last 48 hours, I have to say, is quite a spectacle from the conservative forces in Queensland. If you look around the world at where governments of all political persuasions have made significant reforms in the area of accountability, what you will find, as I indicated yesterday, firstly, is that that has usually been the result of some cataclysmic event. That is not the case here. While we have certainly seen things to concern us and they have certainly prompted some of the action, we have seen reforms outlined by this government that go far beyond any issues that have been raised and they are not the result of any collapse of our system of integrity and accountability. But the other factor that you usually see at play is an opposition—again, of all political persuasions—holding a government to account and dragging a government to these positions. What do we have here? We have a government dragging the opposition. We have a government dragging the LNP to accountability mechanisms, most of which will not even apply to them in opposition. As I said yesterday, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform our parliament, to transform the relationship between political parties, business, the community and the wider electorate, and the Australian Labor Party is going to grab that chance and give the people of Queensland the chance to be part of it. But what we see is the knuckle draggers opposite resisting change, saying they do not want anything more accountable, they do not want any more integrity. They have to be dragged kicking and screaming. All we have seen from them yesterday and again today is criticising, carping and missing the opportunity. (Time expired)

Capital Works Program Mr LANGBROEK: My second question without notice is also to the Premier. At estimates, the Premier said that for every million dollars of capital expenditure 7.54 jobs were created and supported. The report on state finances released last week shows that capital expenditure for 2008-09 was underspent by $1.742 billion. Will the Premier confirm that today 13,134 Queenslanders are unemployed because she let them down? Ms BLIGH: What a question from the leader of a party that went to the election promising to cut the building program. These are the people who say (1) we should cut the building program; (2) we should not borrow money to maintain the building program; and (3) we should have no budget strategy to quarantine it when our revenue collapses. These are the people who would freeze the Capital Works Program on the first day in government, as they did last time. What have we seen from the conservatives in Western Australia? They have cut projects out of their building program. What is our building program doing? It is the largest in the country. It is creating and sustaining 127,000 jobs across the state. What we know is that, without our government’s building program, unemployment in Queensland would be approaching 11 per cent. That is quite unacceptable and something we will not stand still on. What you will see is our state continuing to build for as long as we are in this government. The building program that our government has put in place is at the heart of our economic commitment to the people of Queensland to create the infrastructure that they need to build the roads and to build the hospitals. We will be building a new hospital in Cairns. We are building new hospital facilities in Townsville. We are building a new hospital in Mackay. We are performing a considerable upgrade to the hospital in Mount Isa. We are building new facilities in Rockhampton. We are building new hospitals on the Sunshine Coast. We are building new facilities in Nambour. We are bringing on 100 beds sooner on the Sunshine Coast at Kawana. We are building new facilities at Prince Charles. This is the legacy infrastructure that Queenslanders need, and it is our government that is putting it in place. 3246 Questions Without Notice 11 Nov 2009

If you listen to those opposite they say, ‘Don’t borrow.’ That means: don’t build. They say, ‘Stop public sector spending.’ That means: don’t build. They say, ‘Don’t have a deficit.’ That means: don’t build. They say, ‘Don’t sell any assets.’ That means: don’t build. Every time they say one of those things, we know it is code for, ‘Stop building.’ We stand for building Queensland. We stand for creating jobs. Nothing that we have seen from those opposite could give any comfort to those people working in the construction industry. Integrity and Accountability Framework Mr PITT: My question without notice is to the Premier. Can the Premier please outline to the House the importance of the government’s integrity and accountability reforms? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. This is a very important set of reforms. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Malone interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Honourable member for Warrego, I have called order twice. Ms BLIGH: The reforms that we announced yesterday build on a series of reforms that we have been implementing over the last couple of years. In Queensland we now boast the most transparent and most extensive right-to-information legislation anywhere in Australia, and I am pleased to advise the House that we now have a number of jurisdictions not only from Australia but also from other parts of the world coming here to see what Queensland has done and to look at how they can implement that back in their own jurisdictions. That is a credit to the public sector in Queensland and the work they are doing to ensure open and transparent government. These reforms include not only the legislation that was introduced into the House yesterday but also, for example, a once-in-a-generation overhaul of our parliamentary committee system and the introduction of a people’s question time. Most importantly, they will include a commitment to the most serious overhaul of the political and electoral campaign process in Queensland in two decades. What we have seen this morning and yesterday from those opposite is a clear indication that they are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to a new and open political process in Queensland. I note on this morning’s— Mr Messenger: You are like someone on death row who has just found God. Mr Lucas: Aren’t you glad you’ve got him on your team! Ms BLIGH: Of all the leadership speculation you hear from the other side, the ones I love the most are the ones that include the member for Burnett. I note that the Leader of the Opposition this morning said that he will not support a cap on donations. What we do not know is what he will support. As I indicated, here we are in government dragging an opposition kicking and screaming and holding them to account. Can you imagine what they would be like if they were ever in government? They cannot agree to these reforms when they are in opposition. They cannot lead the reforms from opposition, as other oppositions have done. They cannot even follow the reforms in opposition. Can you begin to imagine what they would do? This is the clearest indication yet over the last 24 hours that they would revert to form. Electoral Funding Reform Mr SPRINGBORG: My question without notice is to the Premier. I refer to the $100,000 of taxpayer funded mail-out the Premier personally authorised on the day before she called the election to the people of the northern suburbs regarding the Royal Children’s Hospital. Will this be stopped or capped under the so-called electoral funding reforms, or will the Labor Party continue to have unlimited access to millions of dollars in taxpayer funded advertising in the lead-up to an election campaign? Ms BLIGH: Let me say a couple of things in relation to this. Firstly, as usual, the member for Southern Downs’s question is not accurate. The material that was sent out to people on the northside of Brisbane was authorised and sent out much longer than one day before the election campaign, and it was legitimate for any government to communicate a decision so significant. I will outline as clearly as I can again for those opposite who have indicated and put beyond doubt that they will resist every attempt to reform the political and electoral process in Queensland. When you talk about election campaigns and when you talk about political campaigning, look around the world to places where they have put in place donation caps and what do you see? You see a package of reform. You see caps on donations. You see a cap on the campaign— 11 Nov 2009 Questions Without Notice 3247

Mr Springborg interjected. Ms BLIGH: They really do not want to reform the political process, do they? We are dragging them forward, as Labor has always had to do. We have to drag the National Party into the 21st century. That is what we have to do and that is the task we will meet. We are talking about the most dramatic and significant reforms to the electoral process that Queensland has ever seen. What we see this morning is the clearest possible evidence that those opposite will resist them. They do not want to put an end to their secret dinners. They do not want people to know who paid $20,000 to come to their dinner. They do not want to put an end to their $5,000 breakfasts. They want to be the last political party in the country that people still have to pay to access. The electorate is expecting more of all political parties, and it is Labor that will deliver that. What we know is that the electorate is increasingly concerned about the relationship between political parties of all persuasions and the business community with big donations—things like secret $20,000 dinners, which is still a secret. On the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition tells us that the list is in his wallet. On the other hand, he told journalists on Monday that he still did not know who was at the dinner. We will put an end to that. The Liberal National Party is squealing because we are about to put an end to its cash cow, and it will be an end for every political party—Labor, Liberal, National and Independents. Traveston Dam Mr WENDT: My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier outline the importance of the Traveston Crossing Dam to future water security in the South-East Queensland region? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for his question. I think he appreciates as a member in the south-east corner of our state just how quickly this region of Queensland is growing and how important it is for us to provide for them. As I think all members will be aware, the federal minister has indicated that he will be making an announcement later today. I, like others, will be watching with a great deal of anticipation, because this dam is absolutely critical to the water security of our region. We are the fastest growing region in Australia and the people who are moving here need to drink water. Their families need water to bathe. The industries that employ them need water to operate. The Traveston Crossing Dam would deliver approximately 70,000 megalitres per annum, which is enough water for around 800,000 people each and every day. Since the project was announced in 2006, rain in the catchment since 2006 would have seen the dam filled 10 times if it had already been built. The alternative to this dam is at least two more desalination plants the size of the Tugun one. That would mean significantly higher economic and environmental costs. Labor’s position on this is united, it is clear, it is unequivocal, it is sensible and it is sustainable. What we know from those opposite is that they have no position on water for South-East Queensland. We know from comments from a number of members that they no longer support desalination plants. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition has already said he would reconsider the whole process. So they do not support desalination plants. We know they do not support recycled water. They do not support dams. They believe that the south-east corner of our state should pray for rain. They do not believe in desal, they do not believe in dams, they do not believe in recycled water—they do not believe in water. That is what is going on over there. People should be very clear: the Labor Party stands for a comprehensive water supply for South- East Queensland. The Liberal National Party believe that the people in this part of our state should be on strict water restrictions forever. They believe that buckets are the answer for the future. They believe that we should simply pray for rain. That is no way to plan for the fastest growing region of Australia, and this dam is absolutely critical to our future water security. If we do not have it, we will have no choice but to put in place more expensive options and drive up the cost of water. Taxation Mr NICHOLLS: My question is to the Treasurer. Yesterday in this chamber the Treasurer said, ‘We will not raise taxes.’ Given he made the same promise just before this year’s election and then introduced a petrol tax, a land tax surcharge, increased the cost of electricity, made vehicle registration the highest in Australia, introduced a supertax on coal exports, and doubled fees and charges such as EPA fees, when can Queenslanders expect to feel the next round of tax increases from this deceitful, deceptive government? Mr FRASER: I thank the shadow Treasurer for the question. Never let the facts get in the way of the argument, because the shadow Treasurer would be one of the people in this chamber who would have had a look at Budget Paper No. 2 on occasion and found the table in there which showed that Queenslanders pay less tax per capita than the national average. But do not worry about the premise of the question. Do not worry about the facts of the matter. Do not worry about the fact that we continue to maintain the lowest payroll tax rate in the nation with the highest threshold in mainland Australia. What is the policy proposition from the shadow Treasurer? So far it is zip in official policy. So far there is not a jot about what they would do, other than to cheer for us to match the achievement of the Western Australian government. 3248 Questions Without Notice 11 Nov 2009

What is going on in Western Australia at the moment? I have decided to subscribe to the West Australian because it is a daily litany of what those opposite proposed at the election—three per cent job cuts. It has a health system that is falling apart because they are removing jobs and cutting into the provision of public health services.

What have those opposite learnt from the last election? Not a jot. They continue to maintain the three per cent cut. What are they proposing to do to support employment and support the economy? All they want to do is cut jobs. That is the only proposition that the Liberal National Party has. Then those opposite walk in here and continue to pretend that they oppose privatisation when year after year every single one of them has wandered in here and advanced the case for privatisation well beyond what this government has put to the people of Queensland.

The shadow Treasurer is on the record for it and now he pretends not. The dishonest Leader of the Opposition is on the record for it and now he pretends not. A man who wants to privatise public schools now pretends that he does not want to privatise coal trains for Rio Tinto and BHP. We have the former shadow Treasurer and current shadow education minister supporting privatisation lock, stock and barrel.

There used to be a time when the people of Queensland could expect that the debate in this chamber would be conducted in a way that both sides of the chamber would put forward ideas and policy propositions. What we see from the other side of the chamber is not a jot of effort so far. It is the hand wringing, lip quivering, worry about it but propose nothing, agony aunt version of politics. Those opposite have nothing to offer the people of Queensland other than a policy proposition that the way we deal with a growing population and meet the service challenges of the future is to get in there and cut jobs out of the health system. They say that they want the next election. I cannot wait for the next election.

Swine Flu Ms O’NEILL: My question is to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health. Will the Deputy Premier advise the House of how Queensland’s modern health services respond to the winter flu season?

Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question. It is now 193 days since the human swine flu influenza manifested itself in Australia. We have had 37,066 reported cases with more than 4,932 people hospitalised. The Queensland government, in conjunction with the federal government, has responded very swiftly to the outbreak.

The human swine flu vaccine was developed in Australia. I have had my shot at my local GP. As at 6 November 2009, 304,981 vaccinations have been reported in Queensland. That is vaccines given by both public and private vaccine service providers. Pregnant women, infants, people with respiratory problems or an underlying chronic health disease and Indigenous people are vulnerable priority groups. But the vaccine is available free to all Australians. Of course, if one uses their GP whether the GP bulk- bills is a matter for them.

We are going into the northern winter flu season. It is very important to remember that the Spanish flu of 1918 presented itself with a vengeance six months later. In the modern world, whilst we have very good antiviral drugs we also have a situation where people move far more rapidly with air travel. So anybody who thinks that the situation has past and is not likely to manifest itself again is wrong.

It is important to remember that in this swine flu season 41 people died. That is 41 people that this vaccine could have potentially protected. Human swine flu has had a major impact on our emergency departments, too. In July, the beginning of the flu season, our EDs saw more than 12,100 people presenting with winter flu symptoms. That is more than triple the number in 2008. In 2009, flu presentations in Queensland emergency departments were more than double last year. Of course, emergency department pressure leads to pressure throughout the hospital, such as intensive care unit pressure, and it is appropriate to thank our hardworking emergency department and ICU staff as well as the rest of our staff in our health system.

Modern health care is about working smarter to deliver more services with a higher quality. Our emergency department clinical network established last year has worked very hard to implement strategies to manage pressure on our EDs such as early meetings about patient discharge, reviewing rostering arrangements and triage processes and regular meetings to share information and best practice between hospitals. It is about treating patients faster and reducing bed time to get patients into beds faster. 11 Nov 2009 Questions Without Notice 3249

A little while ago I hosted a meeting of our clinicians from the network at Parliament House to hear firsthand their experiences and to thank them personally. They have done a wonderful job. Despite demand, the winter bed management strategy meant that our emergency departments coped with very difficult circumstances with the influx of flu this season. I give my great thanks to the people of Queensland Health. These are serious matters and these people in Queensland Health perform 50,000 occasions of services every day and do it very well. Citytrain Ms SIMPSON: My question is to the Minister for Transport. During yesterday afternoon’s peak hour rush the entire South-East Queensland Citytrain network was paralysed for 20 minutes. Will the minister say whether she takes ministerial responsibility for the Citytrain network and this meltdown? Ms NOLAN: Yesterday there was a major shutdown of the network when a computer failure in the central control centre put the train network into safe mode and trains were stopped. The incident occurred at the worst possible time. It happened at 4.57 pm and was rectified at 5.17 pm. The flowthrough of that incident was that 72 trains were delayed for an average of 20 minutes. Some were delayed for a considerably shorter time than that, but some were delayed for longer. Approximately 40,000 people were caught up in that delay. This is clearly completely unacceptable. Commuters rightly expect a reliable service. This government, which is making an enormous investment in public transport, similarly has very high expectations of our system. We demand reliability. This morning I met with the CEO of QR and the heads of network and passenger in order to make the government’s expectations abundantly clear. They join with me in apologising to commuters for this latest incident. They assure me again, as I said yesterday, that there is no evidence to support the suggestion that there are systemic network issues. QR will receive an interim report on this incident by the end of the week. I have made it very clear that I expect them to take any action required to ensure that this does not happen again. Green Army Mr MOORHEAD: My question is to the Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development. Can the Treasurer update the House on the implementation of the Green Army job creation program? Mr FRASER: I thank the member for Waterford for his question and for his interest in job creation projects. These are the sorts of programs that this Labor government during its time in office, in good times and in bad, has maintained a steadfast commitment to, ensuring that the full breadth of society— those people who struggle to get into employment even in the good times—get the support and assistance that a government, committed as we are to giving everyone a fair go, can provide to give them the opportunity to get into the workforce. The Green Army was a key policy commitment that we took to the last election and we are delivering on that commitment. We are delivering on our commitment to deliver 3,000 opportunities to young people. The challenge for governments right now out of the effects of the downturn in the economy is to assist young people into work. What we are seeing across the economy, in Queensland and indeed nationally, is that it is young people who are bearing the brunt of the effects of the global financial crisis. That is why this government is utterly committed to delivering on its commitment to provide support to young people through projects like the Green Army. Not only does it help those young people get into employment but, more importantly—and just as importantly—it provides the opportunity to invest in our natural environment. Since 1 July our commitment is well and truly underway with 274 green traineeships underway across the state of Queensland. Already 40 more green work placements are underway. Recently we had the first graduation from the Green Army program. Eight Indigenous young Queenslanders completed a project in the member for Waterford’s neck of the woods at Kooralbyn reserve just near Beaudesert. Those young people have been working— Mr Rickuss: It is in Beaudesert’s neck of the woods. Mr FRASER: I said it was in his neck of the woods. I know where Beaudesert is. It is a place very close to my heart, can I say. Mr Speaker, I seek your protection from the member for Currumbin. Mr SPEAKER: I think the Treasurer is able to look after himself. Mr FRASER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This government is steadfast in its commitment, but what we will see tomorrow in the labour force figures is an expected rise in unemployment both nationally and in Queensland. Interruption. 3250 Questions Without Notice 11 Nov 2009

REMEMBRANCE DAY Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I rise to ask you to observe the tradition of Remembrance Day. Today is the anniversary of the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918 when the Great War ended. At this historic hour we pause to remember all those who lost their lives or were injured in that terrible conflict and in all wars and conflicts since. We also reflect that Australians continue to serve overseas in dangerous circumstances and hold high in our thoughts the Australian military personnel on duty throughout the world. I therefore ask that all people rise in their places for two minutes silence. Honourable members stood in silence. Mr SPEAKER: Lest we forget. Honourable members: Lest we forget.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Resumed from p. 3249. Mr SPEAKER: I will ask that question time conclude at 11.32. Public Transport System Mr EMERSON: My question is to the Minister for Transport. The minister has repeatedly denied being responsible for the ongoing failure to provide a public transport system for South-East Queensland that commuters can confidently rely on. What does the minister accept responsibility for? Ms NOLAN: I think the premise of the member for Indooroopilly’s question is sufficiently incorrect as to be quite simply misleading. I as transport minister do entirely accept responsibility for the nature of our transport network. That is why I just gave a detailed explanation of an incident that happened just yesterday, and that is why I consistently stand up in this parliament and talk about the government’s substantial investment and positive change in that transport network as well. This government more than any other in living memory has a clear and unequivocal commitment to a better public transport system right across the state, but given that the question is from the member for Indooroopilly I would say that on this occasion we are talking about the south-east. Ten years ago before this government was elected there was no busway network in the south- east, and this government entirely accepts responsibility for the construction of a world-leading busway. This government entirely accepts responsibility for the fact that we are, again, the first government in as long as I can remember to expand the length of the rail network. We currently have major projects underway to expand rail out to Richlands in the member for Inala’s electorate and ultimately it will go on to Springfield in the electorate of the member for Bundamba. We entirely accept responsibility for the fact that we are extending rail to the Gold Coast, with the project to continue down to Varsity Lakes being very close to completion. I guess my question for the member for Indooroopilly is this: do he and his colleagues come in here and accept responsibility for the fact that they ripped up Gold Coast rail when they were last in government? In the last five years there has been a 50 per cent patronage increase across the TransLink network as a result of the substantial changes and the major investment that this government has initiated. The people of Queensland are voting with their feet and they are voting for— Mr Lucas interjected. Ms NOLAN: And they are voting with their go cards, to take the minister’s interjection. They are voting for a rapidly improving and expanding public transport network. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: We will wait for the crossfire to finish. Kangaroo Meat Industry Mrs KIERNAN: My question is to the Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Rural and Regional Queensland. Could the minister please update the House on new technology which has the potential to assist the kangaroo industry and the outcome of the recent stakeholder forums? Mr MULHERIN: I thank the honourable member for Mount Isa for her question. She is passionate about industries in Western Queensland, in particular the kangaroo industry. Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries and Safe Food Queensland are trialling electronic tracing technology for kangaroo products. We are using radio frequency identification devices to improve the supply chain and assist industry to reopen access to vital international markets. Currently, kangaroo harvesters use a paper based traceability system, but overseas markets, including the European Union and Russia, are demanding a more rigorous and verifiable tamper-proof approach. 11 Nov 2009 Questions Without Notice 3251

The Premier recently completed a trade mission to Russia where she met with Russia’s acting agriculture minister and other government officials. The Premier discussed the temporary suspension of the Australian kangaroo meat export market and the impacts it is having across regional Queensland. During the Premier’s visit the Russian officials indicated significant change was needed before trade could be resumed. They were assured that Queensland is a major meat exporting state with a reputation for delivering red meat products that are safe, clean and of high quality. We are trialling the radio frequency identification devices and working with industry to ensure Queensland product will meet the international standards. The new technology provides harvesters and processors with improved traceability of product compared to paper based traceability systems. While there is still some testing and analysis to do, the technology has potential. Six consultation forums with the kangaroo industry have been held across Western Queensland, with over 300 people attending in October. Verifiable tamper-proof tagging was one of the many issues that were discussed at the industry stakeholder forums. Present at the forums were representatives from AQIS, the Department of Environment and Resource Management, Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries and Safe Food Production Queensland. Processors outlined the changes that were needed to hopefully restore market access. Training, technology, the time and temperature verification of the product along the supply chain as well as product tagging and traceability options were also discussed. At the forum, one of the processing companies wrote— I think all of those industry representatives that attended will agree they were extremely well received and the format worked well. Feedback from all of those who attended was positive. Safe Food and AQIS and industry delivered a strong message which reinforced the need for change and the importance of— (Time expired)

Vietnamese Community, Memorial Mr CRIPPS: My question is to the Minister for Disability Services and Multicultural Affairs. It is more than 2½ years since at the Tet Festival 2007 then Queensland Premier Peter Beattie announced that a new memorial for Vietnamese boat people would be built at Roma Street Parkland. The member for Inala, now the Minister for Disability Services and Multicultural Affairs, said at the time that the memorial was very important to the local Vietnamese community. Will the minister advise why the government has reneged on this promise or, alternatively, when the memorial will be completed? Ms PALASZCZUK: I thank the member very much for the question. The Tet Festival is a very important festival that is held each year for the Vietnamese community. It is attended by about 6,000 people and it is one of the signature multicultural events that is on our calendar. In relation to the particular question about the memorial, at that stage, yes, it was indicated to the Vietnamese community that one would be built at the Roma Street Parkland. However, in consultation with the community, subsequently it was decided that that memorial would be more suited where the majority of the Vietnamese community is situated, which is in the Inala-Darra region. That is where the major Vietnamese population is located. In discussions with Dr Bui and the Vietnamese community it was decided that the memorial would be built in a parkland that is now under the control of the Brisbane City Council. I have been working very closely with the local councillor, Milton Dick, in relation to the establishment of this memorial in the area where the Vietnamese community lives. So there is still an assurance that this memorial will happen and discussions are continuing with the community. I give my assurance to this House that one will be built. Mr Cripps: Do you know when? Ms PALASZCZUK: In relation to the question, the memorial will be built and the discussions are now in the hands of the Brisbane City Council, because there are planning stages it needs go through to make sure that it is established. Multiculturalism is a very important issue for this government. Recently I released a multiculturalism discussion paper, which will be consulted on throughout Queensland, in relation to what direction we want to see multiculturalism go. On the news last night we heard some very disturbing comments from the former immigration minister in relation to the Muslim community, and I condemn what he said. Last night in this House we heard the member for Gregory also make some comments about taxidrivers that I would condemn. I think it is up to the opposition to make clear what it sees as its policy in relation to multicultural affairs. We have seen from this opposition no policy direction at all— absolutely nothing. 3252 Questions Without Notice 11 Nov 2009

I came across an article written by the member for Hinchinbrook, Andrew Cripps, titled Return to certainty: economic rationalism, the bush and the Nationals. So he is a bush philosopher now. What did the member have to say about National policy? He said— However, the Nationals are putting a sharper edge on the discussion of public policy issues and have carved out a distinct place for the party in Australia’s political discourse. The sharp edge? What have we seen? We have seen no policy on multicultural affairs, no policy on disability services and no policy on people with a mental illness. It is a disgrace. Traffic Congestion Mr RYAN: Mr Speaker— Mr Seeney: It’s the hombre! Ms Bligh: Arriba! Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Leave him alone! Mr RYAN: Thank you for your protection, Mr Speaker. A government member: He is winning! Mr SPEAKER: I am very jealous. Nevertheless, I call the member for Morayfield. Mr RYAN: You should be jealous of my fundraising ability, too, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: I have not forgotten 253A. Mr RYAN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services. Can the minister advise the House of any new initiatives within his portfolio that are reducing congestion in and around Brisbane? Mr ROBERTS: I thank the member for the question and compliment him on that fantastic hair that is growing above his top lip. As members are aware, the government is committed to initiating a range of congestion-busting measures, particularly in South-East Queensland. The government is investing heavily, as the Minister for Transport outlined this morning, and is making significant investments in public transport—the expansion of the rail network, rolling stock and busways. Additionally, there is the duplication of the Gateway Bridge, other major road networks and also the heavy vehicle response unit. So a significant investment is taking place across a range of government areas to address the issue of congestion. I am pleased to inform the House that the Queensland Police Service and, indeed, other parts of my departments are undertaking specific initiatives as well. The Queensland Police Service is now placing and deploying officers into the Brisbane Metropolitan Transport Management Centre, which was an election commitment of the government. This commitment enables police officers to be placed in the traffic management centre to work with the officers in that centre and also, more particularly, to liaise with officers on the ground to not only help identify problems that exist but also help clear incidents when they occur. We already had significant cooperation between the agencies, but it was deemed significant to place officers directly in the transport centre to improve that communication and those coordination skills. The intention is that it will lead to faster clearances of incidents and also, by doing that, help reduce the possibility of secondary incidents. Those police will be based in the centre during peak hours—between 6 am and 9 am and between 4 pm and 7 pm, Monday to Friday. Another significant police initiative relates to the Forensic Crash Unit, which now uses what are referred to as 3D scanners at crash scenes. Effectively, these devices enable a three-dimensional picture, or map, to be made of a crash scene, enabling the evidence to be investigated following the accident and enabling vehicles to be moved from the scene a lot quicker than previously was the case. Additionally, the Department of Community Safety, through the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service, recently conducted a review of its protocols as to when fire appliances are dispatched to motor accidents. Of course, they attend accidents when they are needed, but there are a number of instances where the unnecessary deployment of a fire appliance causes unnecessary congestion. The results show that those attendances have decreased from 1,239 in August to 969 in September and 964 in October. So that is a substantial reduction. (Time expired) Social Housing Mrs MENKENS: My question is to the Minister for Community Services and Housing and Minister for Women. I refer the minister to the front page of today’s Townsville Bulletin, where the Townsville City Council has slammed the state government for riding roughshod over local councils’ planning laws. Why is the state government allowing ghetto type public housing to be built as a result of the Labor government— 11 Nov 2009 Questions Without Notice 3253

Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on my right will come to order. Mrs MENKENS: Why is the state government allowing ghetto type public housing to be built as a result of the Labor government totally ignoring local councils’ planning laws, thus treating their tenants as second-class citizens? Ms STRUTHERS: I have had a look at those units in Fulham Road in Pimlico and they look great. Do not just take my word for it. In that article in the Townsville Bulletin what did the residents say about it? The residents expressed their gratitude at finally having a home. Let me put a question to you, member for Burdekin. Mr SPEAKER: You will put it through the Speaker, thank you. Ms STRUTHERS: This is the Fulham Road development that the member is referring to. This is the development in East Germany 1975. What are we seeing here? Scaremongering of the worst possible kind. Look at those pink balconies. Look at that development. We are talking about homes for people here. I might even table those photos for the benefit of members because we can be very proud of those sorts of developments. Tabled paper: Copy of an article, dated 11 November 2009, from Townsville Bulletin, titled ‘Ghettoverit!’ [1311]. These are homes for people who need a roof over their head, homes for people who are doing it tough, homes for people who are living with housing stress every day. What did they say about those homes yesterday? They expressed gratitude for finally having a home. The disgraceful show those opposite have put on today to demonise those tenants and to say that this government is referring to them as second-class citizens— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Resume your seat. I will wait for the House to come to order. Ms STRUTHERS: The political scaremongering by the deputy mayor in Townsville and the members here is disgraceful. There are no winners at all in this kind of political scaremongering. Do members know who loses? The people who are suffering from housing stress; the people who need responsible governments to help put a roof over their head. Every member opposite should hang their head in shame. I get letters from those opposite every week. Do members know what they say to me in their letters? They say, ‘Please house this family.’ How do those opposite think I will house that family if they are going to be as disgraceful as the member for Burnett? Members opposite are not giving me an opportunity to house these families. We are witnessing the biggest ever investment in social housing this country has ever seen. Who is leading that investment? Who is putting the money on table for that investment? Labor governments! Every member on this side of the House can be very, very pleased with this achievement. It is the biggest investment in social housing ever seen in this country. Do members know how many new social housing units there are? There are 4,038. The tally is going up. People are getting a secure, affordable roof over their head. Healthy Living Ms GRACE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Sport. Could the minister please inform the House about the Bligh government’s latest measure to encourage Queenslanders to be Australia’s healthiest people? Mr REEVES: I thank the honourable member for the question and I acknowledge her participation in the recent Heart Foundation Walking Day. The government has given a tick of approval to the National Heart Foundation for its efforts to get more Queenslanders walking and help reduce rising obesity levels. The foundation’s walking program is the largest walking program in Australia and is active in more than 70 towns and cities across Queensland. I am pleased to announce today more than $700,000 in funding for the National Heart Foundation over the next three years to ensure this successful program continues. We believe it is a very wise investment in the health of Queenslanders as the program helps to increase or maintain the physical activity levels of participants. The walking program and the Queensland government’s 10000 Steps program have been very successful in getting Queenslanders active. Over the past 12 years more than 15,000 Queenslanders have participated in the Heart Foundation’s walking program while the 10000 Steps program has more than 108,000 members, including me. These programs are complemented by our Find Your 30 campaign, which encourages Queenslanders to find 30 minutes for physical activity a day and make healthier food choices. In the most recent phase of Find Your 30, more than 7,000 Queenslanders took up the offer of a free pedometer to help encourage them to increase their walking levels. I am looking at mine and I am happy to say I have already done 5,295 steps today. More than 20,000 Queenslanders have joined the Find Your 30 Club loyalty program which gives members exclusive access to a step counter that allows users to log their steps and monitor their body weight. 3254 Questions Without Notice 11 Nov 2009

The goal of Toward Q2: Tomorrow’s Queensland is to make Queenslanders Australia’s healthiest people. Supporting the Heart Foundation walking program will contribute to achieving this goal. The program also provides a strong emphasis on providing local, enjoyable, social and supportive physical activity options for people who would otherwise be less likely to be active. I urge all Queenslanders, in fact all MPs, to step up and participate in ensuring that Queensland becomes Australia’s healthiest state.

Maryborough Base Hospital Mr FOLEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. I have argued in this House until I am blue in the face for the Maryborough Base Hospital. Despite lots and lots of promises in the past we do not seem to be getting anywhere with it. I have argued that this hospital should be the major hospital for the area and I am asking what can be done and what is the future for our hospital? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question. I do acknowledge his advocacy for the Maryborough Hospital. It is something that he has undertaken for a lengthy period of time. This government is committed to making sure that all of our regional hospitals work in an appropriate fashion and, indeed, work together. One of the things about the Fraser Coast, of course, is that Hervey Bay and Maryborough hospitals are relatively close to each other and the opportunity to make sure that they are working in the best possible way, bearing in mind the resources and investment in them in the past, is a good thing. I would note, of course, that they are part of the Sunshine district northern cluster which also includes the Bundaberg Hospital. In fact, if one read the Des Houghton column, which is normally a place for Liberal Party releases when it does not have anywhere else to go, one would have noticed a comment recently from the shadow minister in regard to the Bundaberg Hospital. He referred to a report from Dr Peter Brennan into the emergency department. The problem was that nobody asked my office for a copy of the final report from Dr Brennan that had been released and reported in the Bundaberg newspaper earlier. It would have been very instructive but it would have destroyed Mr Houghton’s and the shadow minister’s comments. Dr Brennan said that, as a result of his comeback and the implementation of his recommendations, the hospital ED at Bundaberg was a model for regional Queensland. More significant than the audit recommendations has been the palpable lift in morale and enthusiasm. The staff are enjoying their work and have confidence in the leadership team. There is an opportunity for the department of emergency medicine to become a showpiece for rural and regional Australia. The member for Maryborough has raised concerns with respect to the Maryborough Hospital. I note in the local media issues concerning the Fraser Coast generally. Dedicated specialist teams have commenced a review of the northern cluster to identify what lessons from Bundaberg can be applied to Hervey Bay, Maryborough and the smaller hospitals in the cluster. The stage 1 assessment has been of key financial performance indicators, funding allocations, staffing distribution, organisational structures and administrative processes across the district and is underway. The district CEO is showing strong leadership in this process—he is a great CEO—to ensure that we are working cooperatively between the hospitals. I am pleased to announce that stage 2 will be a review of clinical services, commencing immediately. The specialist review team will include a project manager with responsibility for the operation of the team, an independent consultant who has been engaged to assist the team, a clinical governance expert from the Centre for Health Care Improvement, a clinical expert from the Patient Safety Centre, a human resources management and industrial relations expert from the corporate services division, and a finance and corporate services expert from the corporate services division. That is about making sure that we are integrating those services well and making sure that those issues that the honourable member has raised are appropriately addressed. This is an important issue. It has been an issue of concern in your communities and I am more than happy to work with the member to seek to address those concerns.

Clean Coal Technology Mr SHINE: My question is directed to the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade. What is the Queensland government’s policy on clean coal technology? Is the minister aware of alternative policies? Mr ROBERTSON: Sadly, I am. I thank the honourable member for the question. Mr Lucas: Do they know? Mr ROBERTSON: Indeed, I take that interjection from the Deputy Premier because I do wonder if the state opposition does actually know what those alternative policies are. Yesterday morning on ABC Radio we heard the extraordinary claim by Ian Macfarlane, the federal opposition spokesperson— Ms Bligh: ‘Professor’ Macfarlane. 11 Nov 2009 Private Members’ Statements 3255

Mr ROBERTSON: ‘Professor’ Macfarlane—that clean coal technology has passed Australia by and will probably never work. What an extraordinary statement. That comment represents a dagger through the heart of our coal industry. Not only has he sold out Australia, not only has he sold out the coal industry and not only has he sold out Queensland; he has also sold out his own electorate. As of today we continue to see the development of the coal industry in his electorate, yet, according to Ian Macfarlane, clean coal technology has passed us by. What will that result in? The inevitable closure of mines and the inevitable loss of thousands of jobs here in Queensland. Let us contrast that with our commitment. Together with industry we have put hard money on the table—some $900 million—to research clean coal technology that gives the Queensland economy a future. I think it is fair to ask the question: what is the position of the state opposition on this? I happen to have a copy of a letter sent to the Queensland Resources Council under the names of the then Leader of the Opposition, Lawrence Springborg, and my old mate Jeff Seeney, the shadow minister for mines and energy. What did they say before the election? They said— We will continue to support the development of a clean coal industry to ensure our existing coal resources and our emerging clean coal technologies remain world leaders in international energy markets. The issue is very simple. Has the Leader of the Opposition endorsed the position that they held before the last election, picked up the phone and spoken to Ian Macfarlane and told him to shut up? What has the member for Surfers Paradise done to put Ian Macfarlane back in his place and support Queensland’s coal industry? I suspect he has done nothing, but it is a legitimate question that needs to be asked. Has the member for Surfers Paradise shown leadership on this issue or has he been prepared to accept Ian Macfarlane coming in and shutting down Queensland’s coal industry? It is a simple question to the Leader of the Opposition that requires a yes-or-no answer. (Time expired) Mr SPEAKER: The time for question time has ended.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Integrity and Accountability Framework Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.32 am): This morning in question time we saw the Premier wrapping herself in the cloak of integrity. However, what we found out was exactly what the Premier’s intentions are: taxpayer funding will always be legitimate for government use. But, of course, what was it really about? Today, as she finished answering a question, the Premier said, ‘This is about stopping the cash cow of the LNP.’ That is what this is about. The Premier is seeking to create a one-party state. We know that the government is happy to use taxpayer funding as it wishes. Clearly this is what the Premier was talking about. That is, the government wants to stop the cash cow for the LNP. That is what the Premier is really talking about when discussing integrity issues. Let us look at what the LNP suggested in the lead-up to the most recent election. What is one per cent of 200? In the lead-up to the last election, on 9 February the LNP launched a policy to ban success fees. The Premier said it could not be done. Having taken advantage of Labor mates and lobbyists who have received their success fees, the Premier said that she will legislate to stop those success fees. On 16 January 2009 the LNP called for a potential $5 million cap on election expenditure. Numerous things have been raised in submissions to the green paper that the government has not addressed. The Clerk of the Parliament and the Integrity Commissioner have called for electoral boundary reform. The Clerk of the Parliament called for the powers of the CMC to be expanded so that ministers could be investigated for misconduct to a standard less than a possible criminal conviction. The Clerk called for improved judicial appointment processes. The CMC called for all public officials, including ministerial staff, to publicly declare their work for lobbyists in the previous five years. The Ombudsman also called for his office to have the jurisdictional power to investigate maladministration in the operations of government owned corporations. Yesterday the Premier revealed herself—members can refer to page 3146 of Hansard—to be a believer in patriarchal tyranny, the man hater that she was— (Time expired)

Lockyer Valley Cultural Centre Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (11.34 am): I want to advise the House today of the great honour I had last Saturday to open the new Lockyer Valley Cultural Centre, located in Gatton. Along with my parliamentary colleague and good friend Ian Rickuss, local mayor Steve Jones and well over 1,000 local residents, I was able to get the very first glimpse of this fantastic new facility located on the banks of very picturesque Lake Apex. 3256 Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Interlocks) Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2009

The significance of this state-of-the-art cultural centre, library, 275-seat conference centre, transport museum and, of course, art gallery cannot be overstated. As many in this House would know, this project has been the funded under the Q150 Legacy Infrastructure Program, which is a $100 million capital works program designed to create legacies for Queensland’s 150th anniversary. For those interested in how much a beautiful facility like this might cost, I can advise that the Queensland government granted the council $3 million through the Q150 Legacy Infrastructure Program and an additional $8 million from the department of corrective services. On top of that, the regional council contributed around $2 million to this $30 million project. I had the very great pleasure of touring the facility and, as part of this, met with Sharon Davson, the artist showcased in the very first art exhibit at the centre. Those works highlighted Sharon’s skills between the years of 1973 and 2009. On the day, many were very well aware of her artistic skills as Sharon is a local and, as such, has very strong links with the region. On the other hand, everyone also knows that the Lockyer Valley is the traditional fruit and vegetable bowl of Australia’s eastern seaboard and, hence, the home and origins of the nation’s most significant transport and logistics companies such as Nolan’s Interstate Transport and Lindsay Bros Transport. That is why I think it was a great idea to include a first-class trucking museum, which I believe will complement the Lights on the Hill trucking memorial erected by Kathy White and her dedicated team in recent times. The museum holds a large number of historic and vintage trucks and vehicles as well as examples of some of the most modern rigs. In addition, it has many models, trucks and heavy machinery— (Time expired)

TRANSPORT OPERATIONS (ROAD USE MANAGEMENT—INTERLOCKS) AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Ms SIMPSON (Maroochydore—LNP) (11.36 am): I present a bill for an act to amend the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995. 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: Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Interlocks) Amendment Bill [1312]. Tabled paper: Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Interlocks) Amendment Bill, explanatory notes [1313]. Second Reading Ms SIMPSON (Maroochydore—LNP) (11.36 am): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. This bill amends the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995. The primary aim of this bill is to address drink driving on Queensland’s roads. All Queenslanders should be appalled by the actions of some drivers on our roads who continually and flagrantly ignore the ‘don’t drink and drive’ message. Last year, nearly 30,000 drink drivers were caught on Queensland roads. Of those, around 10,400 had previously been booked for driving while under the influence. Incredibly, around 4,000 were being caught for the third time. That is unacceptable. In the past 12 months, 348 people have died on Queensland roads. Drink driving was a factor in approximately 81 of those deaths in Queensland, or 23 per cent of all road fatalities, as estimated by the latest figures. For this reason the LNP has introduced this bill into parliament. We have waited too long for the Labor government to introduce laws that implement alcohol interlock orders for drink drivers. Before discussing the provisions of bill in detail, I would like to acknowledge the hard work of my colleague the member for Clayfield. When he was shadow minister for transport he actively pursued this issue. Indeed, much of the work presented in the bill today is directly creditable to my predecessor in his role as shadow minister. In addition, I thank Mr Scott Jensen, who assisted greatly in the drafting of the bill. Our death rate is around eight in every 100,000 Queenslanders. Each death is one too many. We have waited too long for the Labor Party to act on this— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! The member’s time has expired. Ms SIMPSON: I seek leave to have the remainder of my speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. 11 Nov 2009 Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Interlocks) Amendment Bill 3257

Each death represents a family destroyed; a life cut short. Unfortunately, in too many cases, it is not the drink driver who loses his or her life. It is the child in the oncoming vehicle. It is the unsuspecting driver who obeyed all road rules. It is the passenger in the drunk driver’s vehicle. It is the pedestrian struck when legally crossing the road. It is time society said no. For this reason the LNP has introduced this Bill into Parliament. We have waited too long for the Labor Government to introduce laws that implement alcohol interlock orders for drink drivers. An alcohol interlock is an electronic breath testing device, wired to the ignition system of a vehicle. Alcohol interlocks can be fitted to motorcycles, cars and trucks. A vehicle fitted with an alcohol interlock will not start unless the driver passes a breath test. It is not that Queenslanders haven’t been promised alcohol interlocks. In 2001 there was a small Queensland trial. In 2004 the now Deputy Premier as Minister for Transport announced consideration of alcohol interlocks was underway. In 2006 the then Premier, Minister for Transport and Minister for Police announced alcohol interlocks were in the planning stage. Also in 2006 the Parliamentary Travelsafe Committee recommended laws implementing alcohol interlocks be enacted. In 2007 the Police Minister, now Leader of the House, advised that the then Transport Minister was working on the laws. In 2009 the now Transport Minister states she has given a direction to her department to move towards implementing alcohol interlocks. But nothing has happened yet. This is an unacceptable delay. Alcohol interlocks are already in use in many other states: Victoria, New South Wales, Western Australia and even Tasmania. Yet Queensland has dallied and been left behind and, unfortunately, Queenslanders are dying. We cannot delay any longer. For that reason the LNP has acted by bringing in this Bill. I sincerely hope the Government will support this Bill as it has already stated it agrees with the principles which it espouses. If it does not, this will be yet another example of a government misleading the public by saying one thing and doing another. In February 2006 then Premier Beattie called a Queensland Road Safety Summit to address the growing road safety issue. At this Summit, various recommendations were submitted by road safety experts, including the introduction of mandatory alcohol interlock laws. This recommendation was accepted by the government, but has not yet been implemented. The Parliamentary Travelsafe Committee released a report in October 2006 entitled “Getting Tough on Drink Drivers”. The report recommended that the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 be amended to allow the courts to impose an alcohol interlock condition on the subsequent licence of drink driving offenders (or require the courts to make such an order, for serious recidivist offenders). The Committee also recommended that the Act be amended to require drink-driving offenders to attend either a brief rehabilitation intervention or (for serious recidivist offenders) an intensive rehabilitation program. As the current Government has done nothing on these strong recommendations, it has fallen to the LNP to act. This Bill aims to improve road safety by introducing various preventative measures to curb problematic drink driving. The Bill establishes a regime of alcohol interlocks, combined with drink-driving education and rehabilitation. In addition it inserts a “3 strikes and you’re out” rule for drivers caught with high level blood alcohol more than three times in five years. Alcohol Interlocks: if a driver is caught with a high blood alcohol level and then reoffends within five years, this Bill will mean they will be ordered to have an alcohol interlock installed on their vehicle when they regain their licence. This five-year period may predate the proclamation of this Bill. The duration of the court order has a minimum time period of one year up to a maximum of eight years for the alcohol interlock condition to apply. The Court must also state whether the driver must not be over the no alcohol limit or the general alcohol limit (0.05 BAC). This Bill also gives the Court discretion to impose an alcohol interlock condition upon the subsequent driver licence of: a high alcohol limit drink-driving offender who has not been convicted of another high alcohol limit drink-driving offence in the prior five years; or a low-limit drink-driving offender who has been convicted of another low-limit drink-driving offence in the five years prior. The court will be able to impose a time limit of between one and four years. As with the compulsory interlock orders the court will be able to choose whether the person must not be over the no alcohol limit or the general alcohol limit when starting and operating the vehicle. Suppliers indicate the cost of installation for interlock devices would be $150 a month or about $5 per day. The Court can make rulings about cost. It is anticipated that the driver will have to bear the cost of the interlock, however in some hardship cases the judge may take into account the fine paid by the offender. In addition this Bill allows the court to order that the relevant motor vehicle be immobilised, for example by wheel clamps. The immobilisation order may be made subject to stated conditions, and be for a period of up to one year and state a way of immobilising the motor vehicle. The order must also state that the alcohol interlock driver is liable to pay the costs of immobilising the vehicle, keeping it while immobilised and for removing the immobilising device. The court may immobilise the vehicle of a third party (“other person”) if they attempt to assist an offender to pervert this ruling. In exercising such discretion (or if another person would be substantially affected by an immobilisation order), the court must not make the order unless the other person is present before the court and is given the opportunity to give evidence about his or her interest in the vehicle and the effect of an immobilisation order, or the court is satisfied that the other person has been given written notice about the time and date of the proceeding, that the court may order the immobilisation of the relevant vehicle and informing the other person of his or her right to appear before the court and give evidence. If the other person is not present or has not been given such written notice, the court may adjourn the proceeding until the other person has been given satisfactory notice. The section specifies that in making an immobilisation order, the court must have regard to whether the relevant offence against section 91P(1) happened without the knowledge or consent of the other person, and evidence about the nature of the other person’s interest in the motor vehicle or the way the other person will be substantially affected by the order. If the other person gives evidence in relation to this section, he or she is to be treated as a witness and may be cross examined. Unfortunately, some drivers refuse to learn. That is why the LNP is inserting a “three strikes and you’re out” provision. This Bill provides if a person has been convicted of a drink driving offence three times in five years over the high alcohol level the person will be disqualified absolutely from holding a Queensland Drivers Licence. The Bill also amends the appeals provision to provide that if a person has been disqualified from holding a Queensland Drivers Licence under section 86(1H) they must wait five years before they can apply for that disqualification to be removed. In all other cases this application remains at two years. Rehabilitation and Education: drivers subject to an interlock order as a result of the non-mandatory provisions must attend an alcohol intervention consultation with a doctor before the end of the minimum period of the alcohol interlock order. The person must attend the consultation at his or her own expense and provide the chief executive with a certificate, or other evidence, of completion. If the person falls within the mandatory interlock provisions, that is, a repeat offender with a high alcohol limit, they must attend a drink driving rehabilitation course prescribed under a regulation before the end of the minimum period of the alcohol interlock order. The person must attend the course at his or her own expense and provide the chief executive with a certificate, or other evidence, of completion. The LNP believes this Bill takes responsible action towards implementing alcohol interlocks in Queensland. This Bill is a practical step to addressing our escalating road toll. I call on those opposite to support this Bill this year to allow these provisions to begin operating at the earliest possible time. This is too serious an issue to play politics on. Enough is enough. The time for talk is over. Now is the time for action. Debate, on motion of Mr Fraser, adjourned. 3258 Family (Surrogacy) Bill 11 Nov 2009

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ClimateQ Ms DARLING (Sandgate—ALP) (11.39 am): On Remembrance Day 2009, I pay my respects to the men and women who have served our country. The Bligh government is leading the way on climate change responses with a multipronged package of initiatives. ClimateQ—toward a greener Queensland—contains $196 million worth of investments and policies to complement the many world-leading programs already operating in Queensland. Last week, I was pleased to be a part of the climate summit, organised by The Climate Group and held here at Parliament House. Leaders of Queensland industry, peak bodies, acclaimed academics, scientists, economists and politicians discussed the current and future impact of climate change. One thing was clear: climate change is real and its impacts are spreading far more rapidly than ever imagined and the more we delay the greater the cost will be. Our ClimateSmart Home Service program is unique in Australia and has been embraced by Queenslanders, and the new ClimateSmart Business Service will be launched next year. By responding to climate change now we can build more robust and sustainable farms, businesses and industries. For example, increasing vegetation and restoring carbon to the soil can increase productivity and is a potential source of additional income once a CPRS is in place. Federal opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull is still struggling to convince his team that climate change is real, let alone the need for a major carbon emitter like Australia to be leading a world response. I am sure that the member for Surfers Paradise understands this struggle. I was not surprised to see the member for Clayfield welcoming climate change sceptic Senator Barnaby Joyce to Sandgate recently where he tried to convince my local community that the best response to one of the biggest global issues in our lifetime is to do nothing. Nick Minchin thinks scientists and politicians are trying to scare 12-year-old girls that their planet is about the melt. I am sure any 12-year-old girl would be able to explain climate change to Senator Minchin and explain the tragic legacy of doing nothing. The Queensland government will not be burying its head in the sand on this issue.

FAMILY (SURROGACY) BILL

First Reading Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11.41 am): I present a bill for an act about surrogacy arrangements, to provide for the court-sanctioned transfer of parentage of children born as a result of particular surrogacy arrangements, to prohibit particular surrogacy arrangements including commercial surrogacy arrangements and to make particular related amendments of the Adoption Act 2009, the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003 and the regulation under that act, the Criminal Code, the Domicile Act 1981, the Evidence Act 1977, the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 and the Powers of Attorney Act 1998. 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: Family (Surrogacy) Bill [1314]. Tabled paper: Family (Surrogacy) Bill, explanatory notes [1315]. Second Reading Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11.42 am): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The issue of altruistic surrogacy for married and de facto couples, heterosexual couples and same-sex couples is a unique issue that deserves to be debated openly and separately. The Family (Surrogacy) Bill 2009 will ensure and enshrine in law the principle that the interests and wellbeing of Queensland children are paramount and come before all other factors when dealing with the process of decriminalising altruistic surrogacy for married and de facto couples of the opposite sex. 11 Nov 2009 Family (Surrogacy) Bill 3259

The bill will make certain that young Queenslanders born through an eligible surrogacy arrangement will be cared for in a safe, stable and nurturing family and home life right through their childhood. The bill also makes it clear that the only form of surrogacy which will be legal will be non- commercial and for heterosexual couples only. Same-sex, single and commercial surrogacy arrangements will remain illegal. I seek leave to have the remainder of my speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The guiding principles of the Bill promote openness about the child’s birth parents and encourage the development of the child’s wellbeing, both physical and emotional. The Family (Surrogacy) Bill 2009 will put the security and welfare of Queenslanders born through a surrogacy arrangement in the same league as those children that aren’t. Mr Speaker, the Bill will extend the legal right of altruistic surrogacy to married couples and for de-facto heterosexual couples who have been living together in a relationship for 2 years. This position has been established under the Adoption Act 2009. Under the legislation, how the child is conceived, whether there is a genetic relationship between the child and their surrogate, and the relationship circumstances and status of which parentage has been transferred, will not impact upon or disadvantage the child born through surrogacy. Mr Speaker, in 2008 a bipartisan Parliamentary Committee was formed to investigate altruistic surrogacy. This Committee’s investigation and subsequent recommendations highlighted what an enormously sensitive issue altruistic surrogacy is in raising deep moral and ethical issues as well as some highly complex legal uncertainties for the people involved. However Mr Speaker, one thing is clear, the Family (Surrogacy) Bill achieves the objectives of the Parliamentary Committees recommendations. It will be welcome news for those Queenslander couples who cannot naturally have children but want more than anything to start a family and be called mum or dad. As a parent I know what a special moment that is and continues to be. Surrogacy, Mr Speaker is an arrangement or more so an understanding between a woman and another person or persons under which the woman agrees to become or try to become pregnant with the intention that the child born is a child of the other person or persons, not of the child bearer. Mr Speaker, the Bligh Labor Government’s draft Bill insisted on opening the debate for altruistic surrogacy available to anyone and everyone and to prescribe to this approach would risk having the issue high jacked by social engineers who wish to use the opportunity to redefine the mainstream understanding of family. The Bligh Government has chosen a second consultation process with a draft Bill that lumps a number of serious moral and ethical issues into one Bill. The LNP’s Bill does not support this approach and for good reason. The Bligh Government’s position on same sex surrogacy also contradicts Labor’s position when the Government excluded same sex couples from adoption. The LNP’s Bill seeks to separate two of the key issues of altruistic surrogacy between eligible couples from singles and same sex couples, whilst also removing from the debate the recognition of parentage rights under fertilisation procedures, and returning the debate to reality by re-affirming this Bill’s commitment to ensuring the rights and wellbeing of the child come before any other. The issue of parentage or guardianship recognition for non biological parents of a child in a de facto same sex relationship should be definitely addressed. However it must be addressed separately to the issue of surrogacy. The LNP’s Bill will make the follow sweeping changes to the current legislation and return the focus of this Bill to ensuring the security and safety of Queensland families. The Family (Surrogacy) Bill 2009 will decriminalise altruistic surrogacy for heterosexual couples and provide a valid legal mechanism for the transfer of parentage of a child born through an altruistic surrogacy arrangement from the birth mother to the intended eligible parents. Mr Speaker this goes to the centre of the topic. The LNP believes in family and their well being and the rights of the child need to be considered and the proposed Bill does this. The LNP has said from day one that we believe the changes to altruistic surrogacy laws, an important and contentious piece of legislation, should be voted upon and debated separately and be limited to married and de facto heterosexual couples, whilst allowing for a separate debate on the issue of parentage recognition for same sex female parents of a child conceived through assisted reproductive technologies. The two issues in question here are major issues which many in the community will have different views about. These laws also have the ability to impact upon so many Queenslanders in many different ways and these impacts need to be examined and discussed in the Parliament on their merits as stand alone matters. Mr Speaker legislation covering altruistic surrogacy should not be lost in a debate on same-sex parenting. The issues in question are of separate value judgements for all members on both sides of the house. The Bligh Government’s tricky decision to include altruistic surrogacy and same sex couples and singles having access to altruistic surrogacy challenges many different people in many different ways, philosophically, ideologically, ethically and intellectually. The LNP’s legislation will provide hope and optimism for eligible couples across Queensland who so desperately hold onto the dream of having a family. For many of these people though due to medical or health complications it just isn’t possible and haunts their everyday existence as they look around at their siblings, friends, colleagues being able to live the dream of creating a family and a new life. For many it’s not a question of whether they would make loving or committed parents. For most it is dealing with the devastation of not being able to naturally create, carry and bring into the world a child. The LNP’s legislation will ensure that the dream is kept alive for these Queenslanders through access to altruistic surrogacy. Mr Speaker this legislation will touch on the intimate aspects of many peoples’ personal lives and also challenge the religious faith that many members have had their entire lives. But most importantly it challenges us to think about what are the best interests of the child. In the case for Altruistic surrogacy set out by Dr Adam P Morton, Dr Morton says that Altruistic surrogacy would allow them to have a child that is genetically their own without risking the mothers and infant’s health. Mr Speaker for many Queenslanders wanting to have a baby, options for couples with a pre-existing disease are limited. The LNP’s bill addresses these limitations and will give hope to those Queenslanders. 3260 Private Members’ Statements 11 Nov 2009

Mr Speaker, the LNP believes that proposed laws designed for hopeful mothers and fathers should not be tied to the passage of proposed laws pertaining to same-sex parenting, and that all proposed laws must properly balance the rights of children with the responsibilities of parents. Mr Speaker, I present this single piece of legislation to Parliament, that recognises and gives hope to many whilst preserving mainstream family values. I commend the Bill to the house. Debate, on motion of Mr Fraser, adjourned.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Surf Life Saving Queensland, Helicopter Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (11.44 am): It was my great pleasure to attend the official handover of a twin engine EC135 helicopter to Surf Life Saving Queensland at the lifesaver helicopter base at Carrara last Sunday. The handover of this new helicopter to Surf Life Saving Queensland was a key election commitment of the Bligh government and the Gold Coast Labor members. As Parliamentary Secretary for Emergency Services and a Gold Coast state member, I know that Surf Life Saving Queensland does a marvellous job protecting Queenslanders and tourists on our beach. The addition of this helicopter to the Surf Life Saving helicopter fleet will further enhance the protection it offers. The helicopter previously formed part of the Emergency Management Queensland fleet of aeromedical and search and rescue craft. When the Emergency Management Queensland fleet was overhauled and enhanced, the EC135 became surplus to need and, in the lead-up to the March election, the state Labor government gave a commitment to donate the aircraft to Surf Life Saving Queensland. I thank the Minister for Emergency Services, Neil Roberts, and the Premier, Anna Bligh, for fulfilling that commitment. The helicopter is valued at around $6 million and, in line with our election commitment, it has been fully serviced before being handed over to Surf Life Saving Queensland. Additional funding has also been allocated to cover the increased operational costs of this new helicopter. This commitment is in addition to the $4.5 million annual contribution to Surf Life Saving Queensland to help cover the cost of patrols, equipment and WorkCover premiums. I understand that the new EC135 helicopter is a more modern machine, capable of increased flying hours and will be able to take part in rescues over any terrain and environment. The Gold Coast community should expect to see it fully operational in the air early next year. The volunteer crews at the Surf Life Saving helicopter base at Carrara are amazing. I know that they are putting in the extra hours to undergo intensive upskilling, training and accreditation to be qualified in all forms of emergency rescue. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them and all of the surf-lifesaving movement volunteers for their efforts. (Time expired)

Bligh Labor Government Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (11.46 am): I want to reflect on taxes and charges under the Bligh Labor government in Queensland in the annual outcome of the Treasury report. Yesterday we heard a most disturbing claim by the Treasurer in this place in his ministerial statement. He said in reference to this Labor government, ‘We will not raise taxes.’ Those are very frightening words for businesses and for Queenslanders when they hear them spoken by members of this government. Why is that claim so disturbing? People may recall that the Treasurer was dragged kicking and screaming to make the promise before the last election that there would be no new taxes and charges. Once the Labor government was re-elected, what happened? We all know what happened—new taxes, increased fees and charges. So Queenslanders were slugged with a fuel tax of 9.2c a litre. Where are we now? For yet another month we have the highest average price of unleaded petrol of the mainland capital cities in Australia. For yet another month that is the case. That is not bad for consumers who drive around every day, but it is bad for business. Most importantly, it is bad for business because business employs people and if their costs go up they cannot employ more people. Car registration fees have also gone up. The cost of motor vehicle registration in Queensland is now the highest in Australia. Now EPA fees have gone up. I have a letter here from a company called Siltech, whose ERM fees following a review have gone from $2,280 in 2008 to $17,000 in 2009—an 850 per cent increase. So when you look at their expenses such as the driver and the vehicle to provide the service, coupled with an annual fee of $17,000, they are doing this work at a loss. They have done nothing worse. They have changed nothing. Their fees have gone up. When Queenslanders hear this Treasurer say, ‘We will not increase taxes and charges,’ they should not be alarmed; they should be extraordinarily frightened. 11 Nov 2009 Private Members’ Statements 3261

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Hon. DM WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (11.48 am): Last week I had the honour to represent this parliament at the 18th Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Pacific Regional Seminar. The most salient point of discussion was the peril many Pacific island nations face from many natural disasters. For example, the island nation of Kiribati is a chain of coral atolls each only two metres above sea level. If the tsunami that ravaged Samoa had struck Kiribati, everyone would have been swept off their islands and into the sea. Obviously, as citizens of the Commonwealth nations, we are concerned about the plight of our friends and neighbour states. However, Queensland’s interests are also involved. If evacuation was to become the preferred option for such nations, Queensland would be the destination of choice for the largest group of islanders. The pressure on our infrastructure from such an influx of scores or hundreds of thousands would be enormous. So for all these reasons, I moved the following motion, which was seconded by Kiribati and carried unanimously, that— This 18th Pacific Regional Seminar of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, having heard and discussed issues relating to the vulnerability of Pacific Island Commonwealth Nations to natural disasters, calls on the Commonwealth Secretariat to work with member nations to devise and implement measures necessary to preserve the lives and the quality of life of the citizens of member nations. The extinction of entire Polynesian nations is a real and present danger. If engineering and other strategies can prevent that, we should try them. The endangered Pacific nations each have a unique culture which adds to the richness and diversity of our planet. The extinction of any of them would be not only a human tragedy but also a cultural loss to the entire international community. I hope that the Commonwealth of nations can play a role in avoiding that tragedy and preventing that loss. Toowoomba Second Range Crossing Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—LNP) (11.49 am): I rise on my feet again to highlight the issue of the Toowoomba second range crossing. The Toowoomba range crossing is in chaos. It was recently described as ‘Range bedlam’ in the Toowoomba Chronicle. Why? Because there was a truck accident on the range crossing on a Friday afternoon and it was in absolute chaos. I call on the Minister for Main Roads, Craig Wallace, and the member for Toowoomba North to support the Toowoomba second range crossing. While I am speaking about the Toowoomba second range crossing, I would like to acknowledge Trevor Watts, who is speaking with Mike Horan in the gallery. Trevor, this is an issue that needs to be highlighted over and over and over again. It really is an important issue. There are 3,000 to 4,000 heavy vehicles which crawl through 17 traffic lights in Toowoomba every day. This is a real issue for South- East Queensland. The Toowoomba second range crossing would deliver a benefit for the whole of the eastern seaboard of Australia in the form of cheaper freight. This is an issue that needs to be prioritised by this government. We went to the last election with some innovative financial promises to assist with the Toowoomba second range crossing. What have we got from this mob opposite? Nothing. They just keep procrastinating, simply due to the fact that their infrastructure programs in South-East Queensland have run so much over budget that they cannot afford to build the Toowoomba second range crossing. I call on this government to prioritise the Toowoomba second range crossing for 2010. The mayors from the Lockyer Valley and Toowoomba also fully support the prioritising of this Toowoomba second range crossing. The member for Toowoomba South and the member for Condamine support the Toowoomba second range crossing. This is something that must be built for not only the whole of the eastern seaboard of Australia but also the Surat Basin oil infrastructure projects out there. Everald Compton is talking about his Australian Transport and Energy Corridor, which will have a hub in Toowoomba. This Toowoomba second range crossing must be built and prioritised. (Time expired) Bruce Highway Upgrade Mr RYAN (Morayfield—ALP) (11.51 am): Motorists travelling along the busy stretch of the Bruce Highway between Uhlmann Road and Caboolture will enjoy a smoother ride, with upgrade works now complete. Last week I joined with Main Roads Minister, Craig Wallace, and federal member for Longman, Jon Sullivan, to officially open the new six-lane section of the Bruce Highway. The Bruce Highway road-widening project is evidence of how the state and federal Labor governments are responding to growth in the Morayfield state electorate and providing opportunities for local people. Investments in road projects are not just about the building of a road. Investments in road projects are about connecting people—connecting people to each other, to work opportunities and to study opportunities. The Bruce Highway widening project lives up to that aspiration. 3262 Private Members’ Statements 11 Nov 2009

The works supported 389 jobs over the life of the project and included improvements to interchanges and highway access to improve traffic flow and safety on and off the highway. This road upgrade will improve traffic efficiency, traffic flow and safety in one of the fastest growing areas in Queensland. The completed road project has been well received by local people, and I have noticed that congestion on associated connecting roads has declined. The road project was the final stage of a commitment from both the state Labor and federal governments to upgrade the Bruce Highway from four to six lanes from the Gateway Motorway to Caboolture. This project is just one of the many infrastructure building projects that Labor governments are delivering around Queensland. Sadly, a traffic controller lost his life during the road construction due to the carelessness of an irresponsible motorist. I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere condolences to the family of the traffic controller. This tragedy should remind all motorists and all members of this House to slow down and take care on our roads. Road safety is everyone’s responsibility.

Child Safety, Resources Mr DEMPSEY (Bundaberg—LNP) (11.53 am): I rise to address the House this morning in relation to a department of child safety process that is affecting families, children, Child Safety workers, disability services workers and a number of other Queenslanders who are involved in this process. I implore this state government to change this process and work with all of the agencies involved for the betterment of the child and the families involved in this process. Recently, I met with a desperate mother caring for her son who has a complex psychiatric condition. Sadly, her story is not unique, as there are a number of parents in the same situation who are going to this Labor government for help but are being put through a desperate process and left with shattered lives—a process that involves good, honest parents being served with formal documents and having to go through a court process simply to get help for their child, a process that is borne more out of financial restraints than for the good of the child and the families. I know of a Bundaberg family who had everyone in the courtroom in tears as they stood up and had to falsely claim to have abandoned their severely disabled son—a son they had fed, bathed and cared for for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for the past 15 years. This process is wrong and needs fixing. They approached the state government for assistance and were told the only option for them was to go to Child Safety and abandon their child. We are not talking about bad parents. They are not unwilling to care for their child. They simply cannot cope because the resources promised by the Labor government are not there. We have loving parents being served with court documents and having to face the words ‘abandonment’, ‘criminal’ and ‘abuse’ when they are just crying out for help. Parents are labelled ‘unwilling to care’ when in fact they should be labelled ‘unable to care’ because they are simply in need of help and are wanting resources from this government. These processes are hurting everybody involved. I implore this state government to work together to get the best results for these children. It is an identified issue. It needs to be fixed now. (Time expired)

Pumicestone Electorate Mrs SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (11.55 am): Caboolture East is fast becoming the centre of learning and training. Last month, I represented Minister Karen Struthers and turned the first sod for the new Caboolture Technical and Education Centre, or KABTEC. This project received $440,000 from the state government’s Community Renewal program and land donated by the local PCYC valued at $210,000. This outstanding multipurpose facility will deliver world-class education and training in line with the Bligh government’s vision for Toward Q2: Tomorrow’s Queensland. KABTEC will deliver affordable training and learning spaces in Caboolture. It will increase training spaces in metalwork, woodwork, food preparation and equipment refurbishment. The department of employment and industrial relations will provide a work placement project for the unemployed to help complete the facility. A partnership with the Redcliffe-Caboolture Hospital Foundation will utilise KABTEC as a base to set up a social enterprise to help in recycling ex-hospital equipment useful to people returning home after treatment. The Queensland Police Service also partnered the state government by providing a project officer. KABTEC offers services from vocational educational activities for school-age youth, to skills and employment development opportunities for working age individuals. It has the capacity to incubate a number of smaller enterprises for local residents and stakeholders. Thank you to the Community Renewal Team, PCYC staff and volunteers, Queensland Health, Mr Wayne Taylor, the project officer for the Redcliffe-Caboolture Health District, and Inspector Mike Brady from the Queensland police for their assistance throughout this project. 11 Nov 2009 Private Members’ Statements 3263

The state government has made available $50,000, again through its Community Renewal program, to extend the Caboolture Community Adult Literacy Group premise in Caboolture East. I turned the first sod last month with the centre’s president, Merv Gardner, who is a strong advocate for this centre. The new building will accommodate a training space and two new offices. There is now a demand for higher levels of literacy skills, and this extension will allow tutors who are mostly volunteers to work with their students on a one-to-one basis to improve their reading, writing and number skills. I also attended the official opening of the Caboolture Early Learning Centre. This state government facility supports children and families by improving access to prevention and early intervention services. The centre has visiting specialists, such as speech and occupational therapists, and offers a range of activities for children and their families. This one-stop-shop for early childhood education and care is accessed by more than 300 families a week already. This is a first for the state, and I thank the Minister for Education, Geoff Wilson, and the member for Morayfield for attending the opening. (Time expired)

Sunshine Coast Hospital Mr BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (11.57 am): Last Sunday, 8 November, up to 2,000 Sunshine Coast residents marched en masse to protest at this government’s decision to delay the Sunshine Coast Hospital. The outraged residents used the catchcry of ‘Hospital delay, no way’, to demonstrate their reaction to this government’s lack of commitment and planning for the Sunshine Coast. The feeling of disgust towards the Bligh government was obvious. The bipartisan rally included health professionals, business operators, union members, returned servicemen, grandparents, mums and dads, children and even a couple of poodles, but I note the Deputy Premier and the Premier could not turn up. While the crowd was diverse, the message was not. The people of the Sunshine Coast have had enough of this government and its arrogance in not listening to the people. Instead of making the tough decisions, when will the Premier and this government make the right ones? What was the response from the government to the message from the Sunshine Coast? To reannounce that planning for the Sunshine Coast Hospital is underway. Deputy Premier Lucas said that Conrad Gargett will undertake detailed site master planning of the new hospital and surrounding health campus, with master planning work now underway. Deputy Premier, did we forget to check the file on the hospital, did Robertson forget to hand the file over, or did we forget to take a look at the government’s own website detailing the project? The master plan was already done. It was done in 2007. Is the government wasting more taxpayers’ dollars on a master plan that has already been done, or are the original plans for the hospital now off the table? Either way it is more spin and no substance—broken promise after broken promise. If Guinness had a record for broken promises by an elected government, this one would have smashed it. The government went to the election in March this year and said that the decision to build the Sunshine Coast University Hospital was locked in gold, yet two months later we had a complete backflip. The people on the Sunshine Coast have had enough of this government and its continued arrogance in this place. The Deputy Premier may attack me personally in this place. He may shamefully in this place attack the local community groups, but take this message: we will not go away. We will not let the government forget this decision, and we will keep fighting until the government honours its commitment to the good people of the Sunshine Coast and builds this hospital. (Time expired)

Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Cycle Centre Ms GRACE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (11.59 am): The Bligh government does not just talk about sustainable green and congestion-busting projects; we build them. It was a great pleasure yesterday to join the Minister for Transport, Rachel Nolan, to officially open the new environmentally friendly $8 million cycle centre at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital in Herston, which is part of the Northern Busway from Herston to Windsor. It is another great reason for leaving the car at home and riding a bike, jogging or walking to work. The centre provides end-of-trip facilities for cyclists and pedestrians to encourage healthy travel alternatives and get more commuters to leave their cars at home. It is colocated in the busway station, which makes it easily accessible. It encourages people to leave their bikes in a secure centre, freshen up and change, and then get a bus into the city. This new centre will provide an end-of-trip facility for users of the precinct. It is estimated that up to 18,000 staff, visitors and students travel to the RBWH precinct every day as well as others who work in the Bowen Hills and Herston areas. 3264 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2009

This new cycle centre will make it so much easier for people to lead a healthier lifestyle, to get to work in a much easier way and to securely leave their possessions in the over 900 lockers at the centre. There are 750 bicycle parking spaces with the capacity to expand to 900 spaces. There are 40 showers, a towel service, CCTV and other security measures. It is environmentally friendly, it is sustainable and it is the way of the future. I have now opened three such centres in the area of Brisbane Central. They are being used extensively by workers and visitors. They are a fantastic world-class facility. The minister and I were incredibly impressed with the world-class facilities at Herston. I urge everyone to take advantage of them. We saw people already there doing exactly that. (Time expired) Shakespeare on Oxford Festival Ms FARMER (Bulimba—ALP) (12.02 pm): I wish to inform the House of an excellent weekend- long event which ran recently in my electorate with the support of Arts Queensland funding. The Shakespeare on Oxford Festival was established three years ago as a result of the initiative of my colleague, Councillor Shayne Sutton, and Gary Thorpe, the general manager of radio station 4MBS. The festival, whose patron is Therese Rein, provides the opportunity to people of all ages to experience the richness of great classics in a relaxed atmosphere. Queensland is one of the fastest growing, most progressive states in Australia, with a reputation for nurturing innovation in the arts. As a result, a distinctive and energetic arts scene is thriving all across Queensland and connecting with our communities and industry in many different ways, and Bulimba is no exception. Arts Queensland awarded 4MBS and their Shakespeare Unplugged project with a development and presentation grant of $33,200 for the Shakespeare on Oxford Festival and for its expansion to the electorate of the member for Sandgate. The grants are designed to support projects that will result in excellent and innovative artistic or cultural work with a public outcome, deliver community benefits including opportunities for engagement and participation, and involve collaboration with other artists, organisations and businesses. This was perfect for the Shakespeare festival. It was a classic example yet again in the Bulimba electorate of local businesses, community organisations and artists coming together to do good for the community. Events included the showing of Romeo and Juliet at the Balmoral cinema, Speeches and Sonnets of Shakespeare at the Bulimba Library and at Riverbend Books; the showing of Shakespeare in Love at Mary Ryan’s bookstore; the festival dinner at Otello’s restaurant, enjoyed by both the Attorney-General and me; Shakespeare Idol at St John’s Anglican Church, with Jack Harrison the final winner, much to the pride of his mum and dad, Jackie and John; sword-fighting demonstrations in the park and outside Otello’s; and the presentation of Romeo and Juliet in Bulimba Memorial Park, where approximately 500 people sat through an entertaining afternoon, Bulimba was already a great place to visit—to go to the movies, visit a bookshop, window shop, go to the park, go to one of the many coffee shops or restaurants, or go up and down the river on the ferry. The Shakespeare festival adds another string to its bow, confirming it as a cultural and recreational destination. I thank all who contributed to this wonderful event. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! The time for private members’ statements has expired.

STATE PENALTIES ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 10 November (see p. 3226), on motion of Mr Dick— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr MOORHEAD (Waterford—ALP) (12.04 pm): I rise to support the State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. The central tenet of this bill is to provide greater power to the State Penalties Enforcement Registry to chase fines that remain unpaid. Throughout this debate we have heard contributions from the other side of the House trying to paint this as some sort of tax grab or cash grab. I think that is a very misleading approach. What we are talking about here are fines that are already due and payable to the people of Queensland. This is not about making anything more due and payable; this is simply about chasing up those moneys already owed to the people of Queensland. SPER was a great initiative, and it provides alternatives to imprisonment and increased revenue to the state. This bill provides more powers to SPER to recover fines from those persons who have ignored or evaded the existing options, and there are so many options available. In meeting with SPER staff in discussing this legislation, the process of enforcement is very lengthy and cumbersome, and it needs to be able to provide people with every opportunity to pay those fines. 11 Nov 2009 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3265

The power to clamp vehicles or remove licences is a significant power, but it is one only exercised after significant attempts have been made to recover those moneys already. Essentially all the existing options have been tried and the person who owes those fines has continued to thumb their nose at the SPER process. Importantly, these steps also involve consideration of the circumstances of hardship faced by the person involved. Obviously this power is not intended to be used for persons who cannot pay fines because they do not have the money to pay fines. It is intended for those people who are purposely evading their obligations to pay fines. These extra powers are not to attack those people who cannot pay but are for those people who will not pay despite every effort being made by SPER. Clamping is also a better option, in my view, than the exercise of some of the existing powers to sell motor vehicles and other possessions, which often have greater costs for the offender in terms of bailiff fees and other processes. One small matter contained in this bill which I would like to address quickly is that the bill provides an option for the recovery of moneys through the SPER process. These are moneys required to be paid under the Industrial Relations Act such as unpaid wages, tool allowances and superannuation. Any process that provides for quick and easy access for workers to recover moneys that have already found to be due and payable to them is a great initiative, in my view. Often workers who are claiming money, particularly small amounts of money—it might be only $500 or $1,000—find that a process that I think currently involves lodging a complaint under the Justices Act is beyond their reach, making those orders essentially unenforceable. This process is simple, and it ensures that the rights provided to workers in awards and agreements are practical and effective rights that are provided with effective recourse. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. A PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Disability Services and Multicultural Affairs) (12.08 pm): I rise to support the State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. The State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill contains a number of amendments to other acts, including the Disability Services Act 2006. The Bligh government is committed to helping people with intellectual disabilities and challenging behaviours live meaningful lives in their community. In 2007 under the Positive Futures initiative we committed to implementing the recommendations contained in the Carter report titled Challenging behaviour and disability—a targeted response. The government introduced new legislation in 2008 amending the Disability Services Act and the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000. These amendments provide a positive behaviour support system to protect the rights and improve the quality of life of adults with an intellectual or cognitive disability whose behaviour causes or may cause harm to themselves or others. This is a very complex issue. Under these new provisions, the use of restrictive practices should not be authorised unless they are the least restrictive as practicable in the circumstances, nor should they be used unless the positive support plan demonstrates strategies that will contribute to the reduction and elimination of the use of restrictive practices. Restrictive practices are defined as any practice used to manage a person’s behaviour and which does, in some instances, prohibit their freedom of movement. They include containment, seclusion, chemical, mechanical or physical restraint and restricted access. The Positive Futures program has been widely acknowledged by the disability sector as integral to safeguarding the rights of people with an intellectual or cognitive disability. They have also indicated early success in changing and improving practice leading to the improvement in the quality of life for their clients. The Bligh government has invested $228 million over six years as part of the Positive Futures initiative to establish a positive behaviour support system. The Positive Futures program has resulted in decreased use of restrictive practices by disability service providers and reinforced positive behaviour support. The program includes funding to establish the Specialist Response Service, which currently serves 120 adults across 43 different disability service providers. The new Centre of Excellence for Behaviour Support, established through a partnership with the University of Queensland, has also been up and running for a year. It is pursuing a research agenda of national and international importance as well as developing and delivering training for disability service providers. A significant capital works program to create special environments has already delivered 16 beds. These beds represent just the beginning of a program to deliver up to 62 new beds across Queensland, including a new forensic service for people with an intellectual disability. I would like to give credit to the member for Hinchinbrook who accompanied me on a site visit to look at where this forensic unit would be built at Wacol. Service providers have been preparing to enter the full legislative scheme by 1 January 2010. However, assessing clients and developing positive behaviour support plans has taken longer than first anticipated—in some cases several months. The process of involving families in decisions relating to the care of their family member has also required more resources and time than originally estimated. 3266 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2009

As a result, the transitional period for compliance has been extended for a further nine months from 31 December 2009 to 30 September 2010. This extension will allow all disability service providers to meet the full requirements of the scheme. The current transitional protections for the individual where restrictive practices apply remain unchanged. For example, even under the transitional requirements the use of restrictive practices must be consistent with policies and procedures issued by the Department of Communities and the use of restrictive practices must be monitored and reviewed. Despite the extension, I have instructed my department to help service providers enter into the full scheme as soon as possible. I expect that only some service providers will need the full additional nine months to comply with all the requirements. To assist service providers make entry to the full scheme, a number of support strategies, which began during the first 15 months of the transitional period, will continue. Disability Services is also making it easier for families to access materials to help them understand the new legislation and make applications to the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal. My department is also providing training for service providers and departmental officers are visiting services to assist in establishing systems for positive behaviour support. These initiatives will continue to help service providers improve the lives of people with a disability. The extension to the transitional period put forward in this bill acknowledges and further assists the effort service providers are making to ensure a quality, new behaviour support system is implemented. I commend the bill to the House. Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (12.13 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. The bill proposes to amend a number of acts, amongst them the Disability Services Act 2006, to extend the transitional period for restrictive practices for a further nine months and to make a consequential amendment to the Guardianship and Administration Act. My contribution to the debate will focus on this part of the bill and issues relating to it. Due to the fact that there has to be an extension of time for the implementation of a range of recommendations contained in the report by Justice Bill Carter, it is appropriate that we spend some time discussing the possible reasons this is so. In April 2006 former Supreme Court judge the Hon. Bill Carter QC was commissioned to complete a report on the provision of services to people with an intellectual disability who present with challenging behaviours. The report entitled Challenging behaviour and disability—a targeted response was completed in July 2006 and publicly released in May 2007. The report represents a thorough historical overview of the nature and extent of services provided to these Queenslanders and raises valid concerns regarding service delivery to these individuals from a legal, moral and ethical point of view. The report specifically refers to concerns regarding the crisis driven and ad hoc nature of services delivered to Queenslanders with an intellectual disability who exhibit challenging behaviour. Justice Carter proposed a fundamental process of reform, renewal and regeneration of the way in which Disability Services Queensland and the disability sector respond to the demand for services delivered in this area with the aim of providing an efficient, cost-effective and financially sustainable outcome for the proper care and support of persons with an intellectual disability and challenging behaviour across Queensland. As outlined in the explanatory notes accompanying the bill, in 2008 amendments were made to the Disability Services Act and the Guardianship and Administration Act to create a legislative scheme to regulate the use of restricted practices by disability service providers and mandate positive behaviour support. A transitional period was included in the legislative scheme to allow time for a disability service provider to set up for the full scheme, which has more onerous requirements. Under the scheme, a disability service provider may be authorised to use a restrictive practice in certain circumstances while ensuring the individual has safeguards to protect their rights. Restrictive practices include containment, seclusion and chemical, physical or mechanical restraint. At times, restrictive practices are used to manage a person’s behaviour which might put them or others at harm or at serious risk of harm. The explanatory notes accompanying the bill assert that an amendment is required to extend the transitional period for using a restrictive practice. The amendment will provide more time for a service provider to meet the full legislative requirements leading to better assessments and plans for the individual and more informed decision making. The amendment will also provide for disability service providers to continue to use a restrictive practice during the transitional period if they meet a set of transitional requirements already prescribed in the current legislative scheme. Optimistically, the explanatory notes state that, while the extension is for nine months, the majority of disability service providers are expected to fully comply with the initiatives introduced to implement the recommendations of Justice Carter within a shorter time frame, which would be welcome. 11 Nov 2009 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3267

I am happy enough to see an extension of time for these initiatives to be implemented and the transitional arrangements to be extended to facilitate compliance. This is appropriate recognition that many of the requirements for disability support service providers to comply with the new standards are potentially costly not just in relation to the fact that they can require significant capital costs to comply but it can be expensive to retrain staff to deliver services that will be compliant. One genuine question I have is if the extension of time to the transition period is borne out of necessity for DSQ to comply with the new standards as opposed to non-government disability services finding it difficult to comply. Certainly, the issue of cost associated with compliance is an issue I have certainly raised before in this House during the debate on the report of Estimates Committee D in August this year. The costs of implementing the Carter report, also known as the Investing in Positive Futures program, has been really difficult to track through the budget papers from the 2008-09 capital statement to the 2009-10 capital statement. However, what is clear is that the costs of implementing the recommendations are increasing significantly. In the 2008-09 budget, $24.3 million was allocated for the implementation of the Carter report recommendations. In the 2009-10 budget this had increased to $61 million, an increase of $36.7 million in just 12 months. I am happy to acknowledge that things are progressing and that I have been pleased to see some of this progress. I have visited some of the new and refurbished secure accommodation facilities at Wacol on the invitation of the minister and I thank the minister for that opportunity. We do know from the minister’s answers to one of my questions on notice that the funding of $16 million for the new and refurnished secure accommodation facilities at Wacol will deliver 16 beds. There is no doubt that these specialised accommodation units are not the ordinary, run-of-the-mill accommodation units. I have inspected some of them, and it was very instructive. They absolutely need to be fitted out with specialist equipment and furniture to meet the needs of those Queenslanders who need this support. I acknowledge that and I accept that. I have inspected those facilities and I have seen the demanding levels of security that are required to adequately protect the clients of DSQ in these facilities at Wacol with an intellectual or cognitive disability and who are exhibiting challenging behaviours from both harming themselves and from the possibility of them harming others. However, I would not be doing my job as the shadow minister charged with scrutinising the government in this portfolio if I did not point out that there have been some delays and cost increases. I have asked questions of the minister to ascertain just what progress has been made in terms of the implementation of the Carter report because it is difficult to find in the budget papers and the annual reports reveal some inconsistencies. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to ascertain a clear picture about the expenditure. I mentioned earlier that I have been extended a kind invitation from the minister to inspect the facilities at Wacol, and I repeat that I am appreciative of that opportunity. However, I did request a breakdown of expenditure to date in relation to those facilities. Whilst I did receive a lot of written information about the facilities themselves, I am still waiting for the expenditure breakdown from the minister. I do know that in 2007-08 the core capital projects to help implement what was then called the targeted response and which is now called Positive Futures was underspent by an extraordinary 93 per cent, leaving a $5½ million gap in the project. I also know that yet again in 2008-09 the projects that were abandoned to cover shortfalls elsewhere were the capital expenditure on the targeted response initiatives. But the accounting does not really add up. Last year’s total of $17 million remaining to be spent in capital grew to be $30 million yet to be spent in this year’s budget. In view of this observation, I return to my earlier point when I asked the question if the extension of time to the transition period proposed by this bill is borne out of necessity for DSQ to comply with the new standards as opposed to non-government disability service providers finding it difficult to comply within the current time lines. As I have previously mentioned, the financial implications of the implementation of the Carter report recommendations are significant. Notwithstanding how necessary and overdue these changes are, it leaves many community sector providers of disability support services wide open to implementation costs at a time when they cannot afford it. Of most concern has been the real lack of financial assistance for community sector organisations to help meet the costs of implementing the changes. No doubt this lack of financial assistance has contributed to the delays being experienced throughout the sector in implementing the Carter report recommendations in terms of capital costs and staff retraining and it lends warrant to the implication that the state government is facilitating the extension of the transition period to accommodate organisations, perhaps including itself, that are finding it difficult to meet the new standards. There may be a real question to be posed here about whether the state government has realised it has set unrealistic requirements for non-government providers to meet or, in respect of its own delays in the delivery of the Positive Futures program, that it has been caught up in the problem with its own departmental underspending. Community organisations implementing the changes are forced to bear the financial impost of these changes. We know that the state government has been in receipt of the Carter report since July 2006. It was not released publicly until May 2007. We know that the state 3268 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2009 government has been in possession of the Carter report for around 3½ years yet we are only now seeing real progress in terms of the implementation of a number of recommendations, and this has necessitated the extension of the current transition period by nine months as per the amendment in this bill. I have real concerns about the community sector which delivers vital on-the-ground services, helping people with disabilities and their families in the community. The community based disability support sector is doing it tough. It faces ever-increasing costs to deliver services and operate facilities. The existence of a community based disability support sector undoubtedly saves the state government an enormous cost from having to deliver services to many more Queenslanders in the community in many more communities around the state. The sector deserves the support of the state government to at least meet the costs of implementing the changes relating to the Carter report. Under this bill, the transitional period is extended for a further period of nine months. Importantly, the current safeguards for the individual available under the existing transitional period will remain. People with disabilities who exhibit severely challenging behaviour are some of the most vulnerable people in our community. These are people who are at risk of self-harm or harming others. These are people who rely on carers not just for the essentials in life but for their fundamental safety. These people have also been subjected to a range of restraint methods over the years in the name of protecting them from themselves and protecting others from them. In July 2006 the Hon. Justice Carter provided to the state government a comprehensive examination of disability support services in respect of the treatment of people with severely challenging behaviour. These are very vulnerable people and it was desperately needed. It has taken the state government 3½ years to look like it is concentrating on the Carter report and delivering on the recommendations that it supported and promised to deliver. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—LNP) (12.25 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate on the State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill is an admission that this government’s management of fines has been very poor. The shadow minister made that point in his speech during the second reading debate, and I want to reinforce that point during my speech. It is an admission that the government is going broke, because this government desperately needs the money. We are $100 billion in debt, and it is forecast over the next few budgets that that debt is going to rise. It will rise to more than $100 billion, and that is without the added cost of Rudd’s ETS. We are searching for money because of this government’s poor management of our public finances because it has lost control of them. The SPER scheme was formed and began operation in November 2000 in an attempt to overcome problems that were caused by unpaid fines under the former self-enforcing ticketable offence notice systems. It is said to be a fair system for people with genuine cases of financial hardships or other difficulties but, as we will see, it has been rorted. It is a central agency used to collect unpaid fines for about 34,000 different offences on behalf of the courts, police, Queensland Transport, the Electoral Commission and other departments by offering various reasonable and flexible payment options to assist those who owe money in terms of outstanding fines without facing enforcement actions such as jail time. We would all like to keep those people who probably do not deserve to be in jail out of jail and mixing with the harder criminal element. SPER powers at present include enforcement warrants which allow the registration of interest in the debtor’s property and seizure and sale of property; suspension of the debtor’s driver’s licence for fines which relate to vehicle offences; and fine collection notices to employers to order deductions be made from the debtor’s wage and sent to SPER or issued to banks or other financial institutions to order the transfer of moneys from the account to SPER or issued to other third parties to pay the debt on behalf of the debtor. The last resort equals warrants for arrest and imprisonment. The amendments to the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999, which are designed to increase the existing fine recovery methods, show that the current fine recovery model has been inadequate and is failing to effectively recover unpaid fines. In fact, many of the powers introduced in this amendment bill already exist in their current legislation but were not actually used and did not extend far enough to operate in practice. A Sunday Mail investigation proves that the current model is failing to efficiently recover unpaid fines. An article by Edmund Burke on 13 January 2008 revealed that the Sunday Mail’s investigation found that SPER was overwhelmed with over 1.9 million unpaid fines to the value of $462 million. Further, the investigation by the Sunday Mail uncovered that Queensland’s debt via SPER has more than doubled in just 3½ years. In July 2004 Queenslanders owed approximately $200 million in unpaid fines. The newspaper’s investigation found that SPER has negotiated repayment plans to recover just $152 million of the outstanding fines, leaving over $300 million unaccounted for. Amendments to the SPEA will allow vehicles to have their wheels clamped where debtors who are the sole registered operator of the motor vehicle owe in excess of $5,000, supposedly as a last resort option. The LNP will be watching closely to see whether this approach will be implemented. As we all know, the government can say one thing in this place and then, when it comes to practical, on-the- ground action, we do not get it. 11 Nov 2009 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3269

The explanatory notes of the bill clarify that the wheel-clamping process will ensure that ample opportunity is provided to the debtors to pay the debt or to enter into compliance prior to the vehicle being clamped, seized or sold. Additional amendments include strengthening the powers of seizure and sale of the property of debtors owing over $1,000. The amendments will also see the use of SMS technology to advise debtors prior to the suspension of their licences, but it cannot be used as evidence of notification later should the debtor be caught driving unlicensed while suspended by SPER. It is said that these new provisions will assist in the prompt compliance by debtors and a higher rate of payment, particularly for those debtors under the age of 34 years, who are estimated to make up 60 per cent of debtors. The bill also makes amendments to the Industrial Relations Act and SPEA to establish a referral to SPER for the recovery of unpaid wages. In some circumstances, this practice has already been occurring despite this legislation not permitting it. The LNP will oppose further amendments to the judicial registrar program, which includes expanding the program from two to three years in Townsville and Southport and extending the powers of judicial registrars to hear certain matters. The LNP holds serious concerns that, if supported, these amendments will undermine the role of the magistrate. Registrars should not be substitutes for magistrates. This government, by continuing to extend and expand the functions of registrars, is creating a second class of judicial officer within the Magistrates Court. Many members of parliament have been approached by their constituents regarding issues with SPER. I have received an email from one of my constituents, who I will de-identify as I read it, which explains the problems that she has experienced with SPER. This lady states— ... I have exhausted all my efforts in trying to resolve my particular situation at hand. This lady has asked for my assistance. I have sent this lady’s communication through to the government and I have asked for an investigation. The lady’s email states further— In August of last year (2008) my husband and I sold our car to my step father who was in fact buying it to help out his own daughter with transportation. With my step father being a qualified mechanic the car was given and cash received knowing he would carry out the safety certificate and organise the transfer of registration. The car was handed over to my step sister (whom I did not know) and it still remained in my name for quite some time. October last year several toll offences (approximately 28) were violated in this car still being in my name. I received every offence and fine. The first and crucial mistake I made was my poor judge in character and decided to believe my step sister in that she had assured me that the offences were in fact mistakes and the e-toll did not scan her sticker properly and she would have it all fixed up in a jiffy. I believe approximately 22 of the offences were fixed up or paid in full by my step sister. Unfortunately by the time the remaining 6 fines were resent to me it was already too late to declare that I was not indeed the driver at the time of the offences. At this stage I then contacted Queensland Motorways and SPER in order to negotiate and find out what my options were. The 6 remaining fines totalled $108 payable to Queensland Motorways. I was told by my step sister to ring Queensland Motorways and speak to a lady ... that the fines had been paid and to ask her why I had still been receiving the fines in the mail. The fines were not paid and my step sister had in fact lied to me. I had continuous contact— with the Queensland Motorways lady— over the following 3 months via phone and email as it was said to me that they were taking action to retrieve the money owed from my step sister. I do believe several attempts were made to retrieve the outstanding amount and unfortunately my step sister decided that she was not going to do such thing and refused to answer phone calls or reply to any mail requests for the monies owed. In this time the outstanding fines had been passed on to SPER and a final amount of $930 was being asked to pay the fines in full. I was told throughout that my step sister must pay the $108 to Queensland Motorways for the fines to be resolved. In April of this year (2009) I made the assumption that she was indeed not going to pay them so to save having my license revoked I paid the fine myself of $108 to Queensland Motorways. I was given a reference number and account details by— that Queensland Motorways person— to pay the $108 by direct transfer. I did so immediately and was assured that SPER would be notified to the fines being paid in full and for all concerned the matter of the 6 outstanding fines was resolved. I had learnt my lesson about not declaring to begin with and my mistake had cost my family $108. August this year ... my family and I relocated to the Bundaberg area and I checked the mail last Friday (23 October) only to find an outstanding fine slip from SPER to recover the $930 for the 6 toll offences from last October. Monday morning (26 October) I contacted SPER whom stated to me that as far as they were concerned the fines are outstanding and I am liable for $930 to avoid license suspension or even jail time. I then contacted Queensland Motorways whom then told me that as far as they are concerned that was not their problem because the fines had been passed onto SPER at the start of this year... I was then told that I should not have been able to pay the fines in April to Queensland Motorways as they had already been transferred to SPER. The lady I spoke to this Monday morning told me that ... was not available and that the matter will have to be investigated. I asked her if I would receive a phone call today as I work for the rest of the week and am only available after hours but was told it will take some time. In the mean time Queensland Motorways was not at all concerned about SPER revoking my license for the outstanding fines. Being a working mother of 3 I cannot afford the fines and nor can I afford to have my license revoked or suspended. I appreciate you taking the time to read my dilemma and hope that you can help even just a little. 3270 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2009

I have passed this email on to the relevant minister. I hope he will investigate. Obviously, there has been a communication breakdown between Queensland Motorways and the SPER authorities, but I ask for a compassionate and understanding hearing from all the government organisations. Some of the people who will be most affected by the legislation will be our truck drivers and also our police. I remember having a conversation with one of the local police officers in which he recommended to me that we go back to the old system where it was a case of, ‘Give me the money or I’ll take the body.’ He said that it was amazing how quickly the money was produced when a jail sentence was going to be imposed. The majority of truck drivers are hardworking Australians who want to keep our highways safe, but I think it was the member for Gregory who told some stories about truck drivers being idiots, and dangerous idiots, on our highways. I have had my fair share of run-ins with truckies on the roads over the years. The most recent one occurred not too long ago. I was driving along with my family and a truck came roaring up behind us flashing its headlights and indicated that it wanted to go around. We just continued on but it overtook us. We were doing the speed limit of 100 kilometres an hour and it just overtook us. Then he pulled in and tried to cut us off. I reported the incident to the police. I had wonderful service and a wonderful reaction from the police. I commend them for their actions. They pulled over the truckie. This incident occurred in North Queensland. The police indicated that they would have liked to test the truck driver for drugs, but the drug-testing unit was not available. I think the police minister should look at that issue and make drug testing for our truckies and our motorists more available. In closing, I would like to say that quite a lot of money is owed. I think the money collected from SPER should be going straight back into our roads, especially into our regional roads. Once again, I would like to compliment the truck drivers who have to contend with not only difficult conditions but also deteriorating road conditions. In particular, I would like to thank the semitrailer drivers who have to radio each other to coordinate their arrival at the Isis River Bridge in my electorate of Burnett. The bridge is so narrow that two semitrailers travelling in opposite directions should never meet on that bridge. With those comments, I commend the bill. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (12.39 pm): I rise to participate in the debate on the State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. I put on the record my support for this bill and the intent contained within it. A number of members have criticised the minister for following the lead of other states in Australia in looking at this as the new way to try to recover funds and fines that are due and owed to Queenslanders. But I think that we need to look outside the square. If there is a good model in other states we in the state parliament in Queensland need to grasp those opportunities and try to see if we can adopt those changed laws to Queensland circumstances. There have been a number of occasions while I have been in parliament where we have followed the lead in other states and modified our laws in Queensland because of the success other states have had with the relevant laws. I applaud the method of ministers and members of parliament looking at how other states deal with these very difficult issues and seeing if there are ways that we can follow their lead. I note that there is a significant extension of powers of judicial registrars. Members have put on the record their opposition to this extension of powers. We need to move forward. I support looking at new ways to see how various state government employees and judicial officers undertake their roles and duties. I support the extension of the powers and the new roles of our judicial officers. Recently we saw the extension of powers and duties of our nurse practitioners. I believe that we need to always look at ways of trying to ensure that taxpayers in Queensland get the best value from the taxes that they pay. Other amendments in this bill designed to provide new opportunities to suspend people’s drivers’ licences for unpaid fines, the issue of wheel clamping and the seizure of vehicles has certainly been discussed by all members of the House. The opportunity to sell real and personal property is also provided for. I believe that the prerequisites that the government has included in this bill are fair and reasonable. It gives us an opportunity to put additional pressure on those people who owe funds to Queenslanders to actually have to come to the table and come up with those funds. We always need to try to look at easier ways of getting those funds from the people who owe them and I believe that this is fair and reasonable. I certainly do support the bill. I believe that this is a genuine attempt to make sure that fine defaulters can no longer continue to snub their nose at the fines that are owed. I also put on the record my support for the amendments to the Guardianship and Administration Act. These amendments will allow people to apply to the tribunal to review the appointment of an administrator. I believe that is very fair, reasonable and just. I commend the bill to the House. Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (12.43 pm): I rise to support the State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. In particular, I want to highlight how amendments to the State Penalties Enforcement Act will help to recover the staggering amount of money in unpaid fines that is currently owed to the Queensland government and, more importantly, to the taxpayers of this great 11 Nov 2009 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3271 state. Although some $203 million is currently being paid under various compliance agreements, a further $249 million remains outstanding. This bill will amend the State Penalties Enforcement Act to strengthen the compliance and enforcement capabilities of the State Penalties Enforcement Registry, commonly called SPER. We need to maintain public confidence in the government and its agencies. The public interest is not being served, in my view, if recalcitrant debtors cannot be brought to justice to pay fines to the Queensland government and the taxpayer, fines imposed by courts for outstanding traffic offences or by local councils and other administering authorities. The objectives of the SPER system include maintaining the integrity of fines as a viable sentencing or punitive option for offenders. The SPER system must also aim to maintain confidence in the justice system by adjusting the means available to collect fines from non-compliant offenders. This bill will introduce new enforcement strategies to significantly enhance SPER’s ability to recover the outstanding fine pool of some $250 million. It will expand driver licence suspension to unpaid amounts for non-motor vehicle related offences, bringing Queensland into line with all other Australian jurisdictions except the ACT. It will also create new powers and processes for SPER to immobilise, seize and sell vehicles owned by recalcitrant debtors who owe the state more than $5,000. Wheel clamping is one option for seizing appropriate vehicles for sale to recover outstanding fines. However, wheel clamping will be used as a last resort enforcement action, second only to imprisonment, and debtors will be given ample opportunity to pay their debt or enter into compliance agreements before their vehicle is actually clamped, seized or sold. Debtors will be served with an intent notice giving them 14 days to pay or enter into compliance. They will also be served with an immobilisation warrant empowering SPER to clamp their vehicle without further notice. Vehicles of little monetary value will not be seized but owners will be referred to the next warrant evaluation committee for an arrest and imprisonment warrant. Vehicles may only be clamped in an area where the immobilised vehicle will not constitute a threat to traffic or endanger the safety of the public. This bill will specifically target the 60 per cent of debtors aged under 34 years by engaging SMS technology to communicate with them to prompt compliance and encourage higher rates of payment. Furthermore, this bill amends both the Industrial Relations Act and the State Penalties Enforcement Act to establish referral to SPER as a cost-effective alternative enforcement option for wages victims—workers with limited resources—to recover their unpaid wages and other benefits. However, employees will still be able to access existing civil processes to recover amounts ordered to be paid to them. This bill covers many amendments to a range of legislation. One of the most important is the provision enabling Queensland police to share information with interstate forces to prevent people with unacceptable backgrounds from working with children. The amendment to the Police Service Administration Act 1990 and the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 will facilitate Queensland’s participation in the November 2008 COAG endorsed national exchange of criminal history information for people working with children. Currently, intrastate access to criminal history information by Australian screening units for child related employment is extensive, but the COAG initiative will significantly expand the access and the sort of information available to share with interstate agencies and jurisdictions. The national exchange of criminal history information aims to remove existing legislative barriers to supplying expanded criminal history information between jurisdictions. I certainly welcome that. Children will be better protected by the new process because screening units engaged in reviewing people applying to work with children will have access to a wider range of criminal history information to better inform their decision making. Certainly it is a very interesting and good part of this bill and I commend this bill to the House. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (12.48 pm): I rise to speak to the State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. The principal purpose of the State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Bill 2009 is to strengthen the compliance and enforcement capabilities of the State Penalties Enforcement Registry, otherwise known by its acronym SPER. My first question is: how did what should have been a very simple system of fine collection become so complicated? Why at the time of the fine are those who incur the fine not offered three options: pay the fine, have the money deducted from accounts or undertake community service? If they choose to contest the fine then at the end of the contesting process the same options can be offered: pay it, have it taken out of an account, whether by instalment or other means, or do community service. It is a very simple system. I believe the majority of people do pay their fines. However, as we can see from the figures and the size of the accumulated fines, many do not. I believe those fine defaulters are recidivist defaulters and the fines must be recouped. But how did the accumulated fines manage to get so big? How did they get to the point where they are so burdensome? Maybe we should look at why people fail to pay fines? I believe that, to a great extent, it is because they do not respect the system or those who enforce it, and they have a total disregard for their responsibilities and for their own actions. They believe that the world owes them. 3272 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2009

I find those who constantly disregard traffic rules have been doing so since childhood. Those who do not pay their fines have no respect for the system in any way, shape or form. Perhaps when they were kids—as kids do today—they flaunted the law. They are the kids who ride their skateboards at night in the middle of the roads, disregarding the rights of others to use the roads. They ride their bikes on the footpaths, and swerve across the roads with total disregard for the vehicles on the roads. They give rude gestures to the drivers, some of whom narrowly avoid hitting them with their vehicles. They totally disregard the danger they put themselves and others in, but they are totally willing to blame everyone else in the event they are injured by their own stupid recklessness and careless actions. There appear to be no repercussions for young people displaying this sort of behaviour. Their bikes, skateboards or other childhood means of transport are not confiscated for 24 hours. The police do not talk to their parents. They do not bring home the consequences for this type of behaviour. Yes, police do go to schools and conduct talks, but there is no reinforcement when the kids leave the school gates. There is no chance of altering their actions, unless they are confronted while doing the action. By the time those kids grow up and get onto our roads, they habitually disregard authority and place very little importance on any fine imposed on them. Often one only has to open their glove box to find a significant collection of new and old fines. The police do their job, but our judiciary has let down the community and, most importantly, the perpetrators. By being constantly compassionate and lenient, the judiciary reinforces the belief that the perpetrator can push the limits for months, and even years at times, before being brought to any sense of account. Being so lenient does nothing to help society in any way, shape or form. Recently, a drink driver appeared in court on his 18th drink-driving offence. If he was appearing in court for the 18th time, the question has to be asked: why did he still have a licence? This happens with any sort of fine. People are fined time after time and in some cases it is only after years that they are forced to pay, either financially or through some other form of restitution. I am not saying do not fine people, but if someone is fined we must ensure that the payment is immediately addressed. Everyone gets paid in some way, be it through wages or Centrelink payments. If money can be deducted for car payments, electricity and other bills, it can be deducted by arrangement to pay fines. If a person is financially strapped, arrangements for community service should be put in place. Why can a penalty unit not have a financial or a service value? The cost of fine recovery is enormous and I would be curious to know how much it costs SPER to operate. How much profit is accumulated on fine defaulters after the process has been fully traversed? You cannot include the total return of all fines accumulated, because many were paid willingly, but I would like to know the difference between the value of the fines received and the cost to recoup them from defaulters. I want people to take responsibility for their actions and we need to target the young. It is no use chastising a child for breaking a rule he does not know exists and I am convinced many children are simply not aware of the rules. There is no point chastising someone three to six or even 12 months down the track, because the lesson is lost. It is the same with fine defaulters. There should be an instant repercussion in the form of a fine being deducted from income if the fine is not paid upfront, or community service must be enforced immediately. The choice must be theirs. I do not particularly like this bill. I do not like the way SPER operates at the moment. Not too long ago a person in my electorate was pursued aggressively by SPER because he happened to have the same name as an offender. Nothing else was the same. He did not have the same address and he was not the same age. It took years for SPER to get off his case and start chasing the right person, but in the meantime my constituent was put through hell whilst he tried to get them to believe that they had the wrong man. We will always have fine defaulters and I believe the seeds are sown when they are young if they are not brought to account for their actions. Although the issue of fines has to be addressed, I would advocate that they be immediate and not delayed for years, as they are in some cases. Mr WETTENHALL (Barron River—ALP) (12.54 pm): I rise to speak on the State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. This bill is divided into four chapters which deal with amendments to different pieces of legislation. I will primarily be addressing the amendments contained in chapter 2. Chapter 2 provides for increased options for the State Penalties Enforcement Registry, SPER, to engage debtors in compliance and enforcement of fines. SPER has the unenviable task of recovering unpaid court ordered fines, court ordered restitution or compensation, which is paid to victims of crime, and infringement notice penalties issued by state government agencies and authorities. Currently SPER already has a number of flexible methods to enable people to pay off their fines in a manageable way. Instalment plans can be entered into, direct debits organised from wages or Centrelink and community service orders can be completed in lieu of the fine by way of a fine option order for those who genuinely are unable to make the payments. SPER is to be congratulated on the high success rate that it achieves in recovery of these debts. When you bear in mind that these are often the fines not paid by the due time, the debt recovery rate of around 75 per cent is very high, and many debt collectors would be proud of such a record. However, as 11 Nov 2009 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3273 at 1 June this year, there was over $450 million owing to SPER. That money is owed to the taxpayers of Queensland and to victims of crime who have been ordered to receive compensation but have not received it—$203 million of this debt was under active compliance. However, the balance is owed by recalcitrant people who do not take responsibility for their wrongdoing and do not attempt to make an effort to pay their fine. Fines are a valuable punishment option for courts and government agencies. They punish the wrong doer and provide some monetary recompense for the wrongdoing by way of restitution to the community. To maintain public confidence in fines as a method of punishment and in the criminal justice system as a whole, the government has decided to take further steps to allow SPER officers to recover unpaid fines. It is not fair if people who refuse to comply with fine orders can thumb their nose at the government and the people of Queensland without stronger enforcement action being able to be taken against them. Currently, SPER can make an order to suspend a driver’s licence for unpaid fines if the fine is a driving-related fine. This has been an effective tool for getting offenders into compliance. Once they enter into an instalment plan, provided they comply with the plan, they can retain their licence. It is proposed to extend this power to include non-driving related fines. This will bring Queensland into line with all other jurisdictions except the ACT. Once a person receives notification that their licence will be suspended if they continue with their noncompliance, there is an added incentive to ensure they take steps to contact SPER to talk abut how they can make arrangements to pay. Some of the debts owed by offenders to SPER are for significant sums of money. These high-value fine debtors often ignore their SPER debts, but ignoring them does not make them go away. There is no reason why any Queenslander should be in noncompliance with SPER. The flexibility of payment options and the availability of fine option orders mean everyone has the capacity to address their fine obligations. Another initiative being introduced in this bill is for SPER to be able to immobilise, seize and sell vehicles owned by recalcitrant high-value debtors. This wheel-clamping method has already been introduced in a number of other jurisdictions, including New Zealand, Victoria and South Australia. This is a power that will only be available for high-value debtors, for those debtors who owe more than a prescribed amount to SPER. It is envisaged that initially this amount will be $5,000. It will also be an enforcement option of last resort. Clamping will be used by SPER where other options are not suitable or have proven to be unsuccessful. The debtor would also need to be the sole registered operator of the motor vehicle. Initially it will be trialled in the Brisbane metropolitan region, in both metropolitan north and metropolitan south police regions, commencing 1 January 2010. Initially the process will allow SPER to register an interest over a vehicle on the register of encumbered vehicles. This will prevent a debtor from avoiding this system by selling the car before it can be seized. Once it has registered its interest, SPER will then serve the debtor with a notice of intent, which gives the debtor 14 days to either pay the fine or enter into compliance. Given the time that has already been allowed prior to this method being pursued, this is eminently fair. SPER operates a call centre from 8 am to 5.45 pm Monday to Friday, with a 1800 number, at the cost of a local call. Application forms for instalment plans and fine option orders are available online and can be faxed or posted to SPER. If the debtor fails to take the opportunity afforded by SPER to enter into compliance, SPER officers can clamp the vehicle at any reasonable time of the day or night without further notice to the debtor. The vehicle can be clamped for up to five days and then seized for sale if it is not of sufficient value to cover the value of the fines. If not, SPER will refer the debtor to the next warrant evaluation committee for an arrest and imprisonment warrant. SPER officers will be able to clamp vehicles if they are in a public place or the debtor’s place of residence. Where the debtor is a corporation, the vehicle can be seized from the place of business. In any case, a vehicle can be seized from any property with the consent of the occupier. Sitting suspended from 1.00 pm to 2.30 pm. Mr WETTENHALL: The vehicle cannot be clamped where it would constitute a traffic or safety hazard. Nor can a vehicle be clamped where to do so would compromise the safety of the occupants. The seizure of vehicles is part of a wider power contained in this bill to seize and sell the property of a debtor. This will be part of a two-year pilot, again in the Brisbane metropolitan area, to enable Magistrates Court bailiffs to enforce seizure and sale warrants against debtors who owe $1,000 or more. Where the seizure of a vehicle will cause severe and unusual hardship to the debtor or their family or to a third person who uses the vehicle and has no capacity to ensure the debtor pays the debt, there will be a capacity to apply for consideration of this fact both before the immobilisation warrant is issued and also during the seizure period. This consideration will take into account a number of matters including the employment and residential situation of the debtor and their responsibilities to family or as a carer. 3274 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2009

One of the notable aspects of the profile of SPER debtors is that 60 per cent of debtors are aged 34 years or under. Because most people in this age group are highly tech savvy, it makes sense that the most up-to-date technology is available to SPER to engage with these debtors in an attempt to enter into compliance. This bill will allow SPER to contact debtors using SMS technology without requiring their prior approval. This technology will be used in particular circumstances such as when SPER is about to suspend a debtors driver’s licence. They will of course first receive written notification, with an SMS reminder prior to suspension. Similarly, where a debtor has entered into an instalment plan to pay by credit card, the debtor will receive an SMS message advising that their credit card is about to expire so that new details can be provided to SPER to ensure they remain in compliance. Where a debtor defaults on a payment plan, they will be sent a default notice, but, before SPER suspends the agreed payment plan, they will also be sent a reminder SMS. These are very strong initiatives that will allow SPER to take action against those debtors who refuse to honour their obligations to the government and the taxpayers of Queensland by paying their outstanding fines. This is a positive step towards ensuring that all Queenslanders who owe SPER debts enter into compliance to commence paying off their fines. I commend the Attorney-General and the Department of Justice and Attorney-General for this bold initiative, which will strengthen the capacity of our courts and government agencies to punish wrongdoers in a way that has even greater enforcement potential. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (2.33 pm): I rise to the speak to the State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, which increases the power of SPER to be involved in following up debt owed by members of this community and broadens the jurisdiction of their involvement. I think the notion of SPER is good. When the SPER structure was first created and started operation, I remember rising in this place to talk about the difficulties that SPER created in some people’s experience and that was that SPER called up debts that were at times nine, 10 or 15 years old. The debt had not been followed up in any other way and suddenly people were getting calls to settle traffic fines and other things that were very old and they had no opportunity to be able to understand the circumstance of the fine or the infringement notice. The easy argument against that is that they must have owed the debt. I am not arguing that point. But certainly the infringement fine had not been settled in a timely manner by the government and the agencies that were empowered to do it. Yet once SPER was established a number of letters were sent out to recover very old fines. I am wondering whether that will occur with the increase in the involvement of SPER to recover other unpaid infringement notices or more particularly unpaid wages, tool allowances and superannuation contributions. I support that part of the bill particularly because workers who are owed money—wages, tool allowance, unpaid superannuation contributions—are often at a significant disadvantage. They are in a disproportionate position of power. If the employer is not properly fulfilling his or her obligations to pay superannuation contributions, and equally if an employee is not paying contributions, that needs to be able to be recompensed. But, more importantly, with unpaid wages and tool allowances, where usually they involve somebody who is not in a position to be able to argue with the employer, I think it will be exceptionally successful for a third party to be involved in a simple process to recoup those moneys owed. I am always concerned where the suspension of drivers’ licences is involved. I have had a number of complaints to my office, and I am sure other members have, too, about people being intercepted by police and police advising them that their licence had been suspended. I think it is important for the Attorney-General or his department to have a look at the efficiency of advice to licence holders that there is an impending suspension or that a suspension has occurred, because I think there is sufficient information to show that the current process is at times ineffectual. It is important for somebody who is going to have their licence suspended to know that it is going to occur. I listened to the previous speaker outline circumstances that will be considered prior to a vehicle being wheel clamped or seized and sold. I believe it is critically important that those safeguards are not only in place in the legislation but taken into account in the application of this legislation. Often in a situation where a person is irresponsible and not paying fines there are others involved in that person’s life, and that sense of irresponsibility or lack of accountability flows over to those other relationships. So it is important that the officers who are going to wheel-clamp a vehicle or seize and sell a person’s property take into account the impact on the family or extended family of the person whose property is being seized. I also support the amendments to the Police Service Administration Act 1990 to implement the Council of Australian Governments’ agreement in 2008 for the interjurisdictional exchange of criminal history information in relation to people working with children. The expanded criminal history to be exchanged is to include spent convictions, pending charges and charges that did not result in a conviction, such as withdrawn charges and acquittals. In all of the instances where we have looked at people’s criminal history—both those who have been processed through the courts and those where charges have not proceeded—it has always been my view that people who are intent on harming children have a pattern of behaviour. Whilst not all charges are followed through for various reasons—including the wellbeing of the victim, the child—it is 11 Nov 2009 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3275 important that that pattern of behaviour be noted when these people are applying for jobs where they will be in regular contact with children and in a position of trust. It is the nature of those people that, if they have had their experience noted in Queensland, they will go to a different jurisdiction—usually a couple of states away—in the hope that their behaviour is not known and will not be known. I commend the Attorney-General and the COAG participants for this exchange of information. There are limitations to the use of the information, and I believe that will safeguard the rights and liberties of the people involved. Some of the other material that the bill deals with relates to minor corrections. However, I would again say that those matters that deal with the protection of children are excellent. Those matters that deal with the interruption of a person’s ability to earn a living or to own possessions have to be in place but administered cautiously and with sensitivity in relation to the impact not only on the perpetrator but more importantly on that person’s family. I look forward to the Attorney-General’s summing-up. Mr FINN (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (2.41 pm): I rise to speak on the State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill and particularly to address the amendments contained in chapter 3 of the bill. At the outset, I acknowledge the contribution just made by the member for Gladstone in relation to the amendments in this chapter to the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005, the Police Service Administration Act 1990 and the Police Service Administration Regulation 1990. The amendments to the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act allow for the national exchange of criminal history information. In November 2008, the Council of Australian Governments agreed to facilitate the interjurisdictional exchange of criminal history information for people working with children. This bill ensures that the Queensland College of Teachers complies with this agreement. Under the act, the College of Teachers, in considering whether a person is a suitable person to teach, must also consider whether the person is suitable to work in a child related field. This bill provides that, when considering this question, the college must consider the expanded interstate criminal history information sourced from interstate under the exchange, as well as any other information relating to that expanded interstate criminal history information as provided by the Commissioner of Police or an interstate commissioner. The purpose of this consideration is to determine whether the person being assessed poses a risk of harm to children. In this regard, the college must consider when the offence was committed, is alleged to have been committed or may possibly have been committed, the nature of the offence and its relevance to the duties of a teacher. The material which is provided under the COAG agreement can only be considered when determining whether the person poses a risk to the safety of children and not for any other matter. Because a criminal history of itself may not include sufficient information for the college to make an informed decision, the college is also able to request from the relevant commissioner a brief description of the circumstances of a conviction or charge that is mentioned in a person’s interstate criminal history. The college is further required to advise an applicant of the criminal history received, including information on the expanded information received. The bill also applies to teachers who are already approved to enable the college to determine whether a teacher is or continues to be suitable to teach. It allows the college to obtain the interjurisdictional criminal history check and further information that may also be requested. The Police Service Administration Act is also amended by this bill. This act provides the circumstances in which the Police Service is entitled to disclose criminal history information. Due to the increased powers given to the College of Teachers to access information under this bill, some provisions of the act require amendment to allow it. The child related employment screening units which have been established in accordance with the COAG agreement are tasked with the responsibility of obtaining expanded criminal history information from the participating state, territory and Commonwealth police services. The purpose of this is to enable those making decisions about the suitability of persons to work with children to make the best informed decisions about their safety and wellbeing. But, importantly, these amendments make possible significant infringements of the rights of individuals, so it has been essential that a number of safeguards be included in the legislation to ensure that these rights are protected as far as possible. COAG has insisted that child related employment screening units must comply with a number of requirements before they can receive expanded criminal history information. These include: that the information be used only for the purposes of child related employment screening; that the screening unit be prohibited from disclosing the information beyond the screening unit, except for child safety exceptions; that staff be appropriately skilled; that they receive the written consent of the individual and that consent makes it clear that an expanded interstate criminal history will be sought; that the scheme reflects the principles of natural justice; that the scheme complies with privacy and human rights legislation; and that it complies with record management legislation within the jurisdiction. 3276 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2009

The Police Service Administration Regulation 1990 is amended for the purposes of identifying those entities that constitute an interstate screening unit for the purposes of the act. These amendments will further strengthen and enhance the protection provided by the government for the children of the state by ensuring the College of Teachers has access to all relevant information when considering whether people who work with children pose a risk to the safety of those children. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (2.45 pm), in reply: At the outset, I thank all honourable members for their contribution to the debate, particularly those members of the parliament on the government benches. I would also like to thank the member for Nicklin for his thoughtful contribution to the debate on the State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. As honourable members know, this bill implements important initiatives that will significantly enhance the compliance and enforcement capabilities of the State Penalties Enforcement Registry. These initiatives include tough new measures, such as wheel clamping, seizure and sale for dealing with high-value recalcitrant debtors. Driver licence suspension is extended to all unpaid amounts, not just those related to motor vehicle related offences. The measures in this bill support the objective of the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 to maintain the integrity of fines as a viable sentencing or punitive option for offenders. Further, they help maintain public confidence in the justice system by enhancing the way fines and other monetary penalties can be enforced. The bill also amends the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 and the Industrial Relations Act 1999 to enable and retrospectively validate the referral of orders for the payment of unpaid wages and other entitlements to the State Penalties Enforcement Registry for enforcement. This aspect of the bill responds to observations in two recent Industrial Court decisions that this historical practice was not catered for in either of the acts amended. Chapter 3 of the bill concerns the national exchange of criminal history information for people working with children, which was subject to national agreement at COAG in November 2008. The amendments pave the way for Queensland’s involvement in the national exchange, which is due to commence in late November 2009. All jurisdictions will participate in the exchange. Not all jurisdictions need to amend their legislation to enable them to supply information under the exchange. For example, Tasmania, South Australia and the two territories advise that they need not amend their principal legislation to participate in the exchange, largely because they do not have spent convictions legislation that operates to restrict the supply of the information interjurisdictionally. I am able to advise the House that, of the remaining jurisdictions—the Commonwealth, Queensland, Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia—Queensland will be the first to have passed its amendments removing the legislative barriers to supplying the information interjurisdictionally. All jurisdictions continue to prepare administratively for the exchange and advise that their preparations are well advanced in readiness for exchange to commence. The exchange of information will help to better protect children across Australia from the risk of sexual, physical and emotional harm. In recognition of the sensitivity of the criminal history information to be exchanged, the agencies participating in the exchange must meet COAG’s criteria for receiving the information, including that the agency in all cases obtains the applicant’s consent to the provision of the criminal history, will provide natural justice to the applicant when considering giving a negative notice based on the applicant’s criminal history and will adhere to best practice in records management and privacy protection. Chapter 3 will also enable the Queensland College of Teachers to receive the expanded criminal history from police in other jurisdictions, by making the college compliant with COAG’s strict criteria for using the information. Queensland’s commission for children and young people will also participate in the exchange, but the commission’s legislation requires no change for it to do so. Most jurisdictions within their jurisdiction have already answered the policy question: ‘Do we provide this sensitive and potentially prejudicial criminal history information to those working with children?’ The affirmative is the answer that they have provided. Particularly in our state, those agencies have done so with appropriate safeguards to the consideration and use of that information. What the national exchange does is extend that provision of information across Australian borders. Currently, if someone has lived in Ipswich all their lives and they apply for a blue card, their expanded Queensland Police Service criminal history information is available to the Queensland children’s commission. However, if that person has only recently moved to Queensland, their full Western Australian or New South Wales criminal history is not necessarily available to the Queensland children’s commission and is certainly not routinely available without additional effort. The amendments to the bill address this important issue for the nation. Chapter 3 and the amendments being progressed by our colleagues interstate to establish the national exchange will remove such inconsistencies to better protect children. The amendments related to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal will assist in ensuring that everything is ready for QCAT’s launch on 1 December this year. 11 Nov 2009 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3277

The bill includes amendments relevant to the judicial registrar pilot in the Magistrates Court. I want to address this because of the negative and critical comments made by the opposition which were quite unfounded and unbased. This pilot has proved successful and cost-effective to date, and therefore will be extended for 12 months at the Townsville and Southport magistrates courts. These are Queensland’s two busiest regional courts. During this further 12-month period, a review will be undertaken to determine whether the types of matters that can be heard and determined by judicial registrars should be expanded on a permanent basis. However, in the interim, to ensure that judicial registrars can be used more effectively under the pilot consistent with the original intent of the legislation, this bill contains some minor amendments to the powers and functions of judicial registrars. Firstly, the bill will allow judicial registrars in show cause situations under section 16(3) of the Bail Act 1980 to vary or enlarge bail and also to grant bail following a consent committal providing the prosecution does not oppose the application. Consistent with current restrictions, a judicial registrar will not have power to remand a defendant in custody. This decision must be referred to a magistrate. These amendments will allow judicial registrars to conduct more mentions and call-overs in uncontested criminal matters. How anyone in the parliament could argue against an effective measure to create more efficiency in the judicial system is frankly beyond me, but the members of the LNP sought to do so during the debate. The bill also includes amendments to enable judicial registrars to hear and determine minor civil disputes for QCAT subject to agreement between the president of QCAT and the Chief Magistrate. Judicial registrars currently have power to hear small claims and minor debt claims. However, the jurisdiction for these matters will be transferred to QCAT from its commencement on 1 December. The amendments in this bill to allow judicial registrars to deal with minor civil disputes will support regional service delivery arrangements for QCAT. The bill incorporates minor amendments to the classification acts to enable my department to continue to use experienced fair trading inspectors to investigate classifications complaints and prosecute alleged offences under these acts. The amendment to the Disability Services Act 2006 will extend the transitional period for restrictive practices and allow disability service providers a further nine months to prepare for the full scheme. During the transitional period, existing protections for the individual, under the current scheme, will continue. The bill contains minor technical amendments to the Information Privacy Act 2009 and the Right to Information Act 2009, both passed this year. The amendments clarify provisions dealing with internal review applications, reviewable decisions and documents the subject of external review. The amendments benefit applicants by confirming their review rights and also ensure that natural justice can be afforded to all parties to an external review. I now wish to address some of the matters raised by honourable members during the course of the debate. The member for Southern Downs accused this bill of being ‘an admission of failure’, in his words. On the contrary, the member for Southern Downs has, in both the substance and form of his comments, admitted that he still clearly fails to understand what the State Penalty Enforcement Registry does and how the registry does it. The State Penalties Enforcement Registry receives unpaid fines from a variety of government and non-government agencies. SPER is responsible for the collection and enforcement of these unpaid fines. Enforcement is proactively undertaken through the use of licence suspension, warrants against property and fine collection notices issued to employers and banks. Each year since it was established, SPER has improved its efficiency of collection techniques and other enforcement options, which has allowed SPER to maintain the integrity of fines without resorting to routine imprisonment of fine defaulters, which was commonplace before SPER was introduced. The member for Southern Downs, however, asserted that these tools have always existed in the toolbag. Regrettably, this demonstrates how little he understands. SPER relies on being able to contact the debtor. Where they can make contact and advise someone of their obligations and options, they generally get a result. But in some cases someone may not have a driver’s licence or assets in their name. Information such as employer information, bank account details or assets descriptions is generally difficult to locate unless contact has been made with the debtor. There is no single database available to SPER to access this information—nor should there be in a free and open society. Therefore, existing sanctions are sometimes not appropriate or able to be used at a particular point in time. Expanding the available options allows SPER the flexibility to undertake enforcement action that is appropriate to an individual debtor. It is also important to note that, as a part of the extension of existing powers, SPER is piloting the use of Magistrates Court bailiffs to enforce seizure and sale warrants against debtors who owe unpaid amounts totalling $1,000 or more. This pilot will run for two years in the Brisbane Magistrates Court district. Seizure and sale is also an important part of the wheel-clamping initiative. Magistrates Court bailiffs will also be used to seize and sell vehicles under this initiative. 3278 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2009

The fundamental gap in the member for Southern Downs’s speech is that, for all his bluster about this being inequitable, about this being problematic, about his ignorance of SPER, there was a gaping black hole of policy alternatives. At least the opposition is consistent on its failure in respect of policy alternatives. He seemed incapable of deciding if punishment of fine defaulters was good or bad, and unable to contemplate a proactive system that was working to recover fines from debtors. Those opposite have vacated the policy field, unable to find a single positive solution to address the issue of fine defaulters. We are responding to fine defaulters in a careful and measured fashion, augmenting and extending existing powers and improving the proactive and reactive capacity of the SPER to do its job. The member for Southern Downs also asked what impact the amendments would have upon existing blue card holders. There is a possibility that, in response to the first renewals of teacher registration or reapplications for blue cards after the exchange commences, the expanded interstate criminal history information could include criminal history information not provided previously to a screening agency. However, the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian and the Queensland College of Teachers consider the likelihood of expanded criminal history information to be shared under the exchange—known as the Exchange of Criminal history Information for People Working with Children—raising significant issues for reapplications or renewals to be minimal. Further, in relation to the Queensland College of Teachers’ application process, it is a general requirement for teachers to self-disclose pre-existing criminal history. Also, in relation to the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian application process, it is an offence for a person to apply for a blue card if they are a ‘disqualified person’ under the act. Any criminal history information newly supplied would be dealt with sensitively. It would be assessed alongside the usual considerations: time elapsed since the alleged offence, and employment history and personal development since then. Nevertheless, if the criminal history information indicated serious offending, the commission and the Queensland College of Teachers would, Iam advised, act decisively in the interests of children’s safety after giving the person an opportunity to respond to the information. The member for Southern Downs also queried why the amendments to the Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act have, in his words, ‘taken so long’. I am informed that these amendments are the result of prolonged negotiations with the regulators, specifically the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, otherwise known as APRA, which has been involved in the process throughout. The QSuper board already falls within the regulatory reach of APRA and ASIC, the Commonwealth regulators of the superannuation industry in Australia. The proposed amendment simply clarifies that the QSuper board will have the same level of accountability as that applied to the boards of all other regulated superannuation funds. The members for Kawana, Gaven and Burnett indicated that they did not support the increase to powers of judicial registrars. For their benefit, I will explain the reason behind these amendments. Currently, judicial registrars may constitute a Magistrates Court to hear and determine minor debt claims and small claims as well as a number of other matters. From 1 December 2009 the Small Claims Tribunal and minor debt claims jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court will be transferred and form part of the minor civil disputes jurisdiction of QCAT. Adjudicators, who are equivalent to judicial registrars, will be appointed in South-East Queensland for QCAT. Allowing judicial registrars to also continue to hear and determine these types of claims, subject to the agreement of the Chief Magistrate, will support the proposed regional service delivery arrangements for QCAT. These arrangements are designed to ensure a continuing high level of service across Queensland. These members who I mentioned earlier expressed complete disregard for the hardworking judicial registrars in our state. I would affirm the comments made by members of the government in support of the judicial registrar program. Queensland courts administer justice over the most widespread geographic area nationally and are to be commended for the effective and efficient manner in which they operate. The courts in Queensland are amongst the busiest in the country, and this government is committed to working with the respective heads of jurisdiction to ensure that they are adequately resourced. There are a number of benefits to using judicial registrars in the Magistrates Court jurisdiction including: a saving in magistrates’ time that can be better utilised in more complex areas; a saving in court costs for simpler matters; expedition in hearing matters; a further career path that is more challenging for court staff who wish to pursue it; and a source of highly trained court officers who have greater skills if called upon to act as magistrates. The Department of Justice and Attorney-General has conducted an initial evaluation of the effectiveness of judicial registrars. This evaluation showed that they are a cost-effective and efficient way of disposing of minor and administrative matters before the Magistrates Court. This evaluation showed that judicial registrars have demonstrated effective decision making, with no appeals arising from their decisions. Stakeholder feedback, including domestic violence advocates, also confirmed that judicial registrars have been consistent and thorough in exercising their powers. Feedback received supported a further review to examine a possible increase in the types of matters that can be heard and determined by judicial registrars. 11 Nov 2009 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3279

If members of the LNP were truly interested in court administration and the justice system in this state they would be supportive of an innovation that is helping our magistrates and members of the Queensland community to ensure that justice remains timely and accessible. The use of judicial registrars in the pilot areas has assisted in reducing backlogs and has allowed magistrates in these areas to concentrate on more complex matters, especially hearings. I now turn to the member for Kawana. The member for Kawana asserted that this would be a case of imposing fines on top of fines. I would draw the member’s attention, given that he purports to be a lawyer, to the fact that the Penalties and Sentences Act requires that when a court is exercising the power to fine pursuant to section 48 they need to consider the offender’s financial circumstances and the nature of the burden that payment of the fine will place on the offender. I would note for the member for Kawana’s benefit that where a fine is referred to SPER for collection there is also the fine option order alternative of unpaid community service for people who genuinely cannot pay their outstanding fines. The member should be aware, but appears to choose to remain ignorant, that the issuing of fines is only one option a court might exercise. More than this, where fines are issued by a police officer or other ticketing authority there may be little capacity to check on the spot whether an individual has pre-existing fines. The role of SPER, therefore, is to recover those fines that are issued by any authority and then not paid by the offender. But the final and most telling point that the member for Kawana fails to understand is that SPER currently undertakes significant effort to ensure that fines are recovered in a sensible and sensitive fashion from those who are genuinely trying to pay. There is a range of options and orders that SPER exercise to assist people in paying their fines. The amendments in this bill are not about people trying to pay. They are about people who do not care, do not try and do not pay. They are about people who refuse to pay their fine and whom the system will now be able to chase and penalise more effectively if they continue down that road. There is one matter that I wish to address in response to the member for Kawana’s second reading contribution. The member for Kawana said at the end of his speech— The bill will also retrospectively amend the Industrial Relations Act 1999 and the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 to establish a referral to SPER for the recovery of unpaid wages—something that this government has already been doing although it is not currently permitted to under any legislation. The member for Kawana went on and had the hide to say— Here we see the government once again covering up its mistakes and its unlawful practices. It is not the place for any member of the parliament to come in here and allege unlawful activity by the government. It was made abundantly clear in the second reading speech that there have been two decisions of the Industrial Court of Queensland that raise concern about the capacity of SPER to address things and recover moneys such as unpaid superannuation payments, unpaid wages and unpaid tool allowances. These are workers who have been ripped off. The government has in no way, shape or form acted unlawfully. But this is the type of rhetoric we receive from the LNP day in and day out. We have those opposite in here making bald assertions based on nothing but political rhetoric. For new members of this parliament to come in and use parliamentary privilege to raise these bald allegations about the government is frankly disgraceful and should not continue, particularly from someone who purports to be a lawyer. I presume he read the judgements, but I may be wrong. The member for Currumbin asked who will pay for the clamping of a vehicle. Where an immobilisation warrant is issued for a vehicle, a civil enforcement fee will be attached to the existing fine. If the vehicle is subsequently seized and sold, the costs associated with the seizure and sale—for example, advertising and auction costs—are met from the sale proceeds. This means that, in effect, the debtor pays for the clamping, seizure and sale and not the taxpayer. In conclusion, I again thank all honourable members for their contributions during the debate on this bill, particularly members of the government. The development of this bill has been a very significant piece of work. It is a very significant achievement to which there have been a large number of contributors working under strict time limits to ensure we can commence the trial of vehicle immobilisation from 1 January next year. They have done a sterling job. I place on the record my thanks to the officers from the Strategic Policy Unit of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General, the QCAT implementation team and particularly officers from the State Penalties Enforcement Registry, notably the registrar, Mr Paul Murray, who led the development of this bill and coordinated contributions from a variety of other agencies including the Department of Premier and Cabinet and Treasury. I commend the bill to the parliament. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. 3280 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2009

Consideration in Detail Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clause 2— Mr DICK (3.05 pm): I move the following amendment— 1 Clause 2 (Commencement) Page 16, line 23, after ‘10,’— insert— ‘10A,’. I table the explanatory notes to my amendments. Tabled paper: Explanatory notes to Mr Dick’s amendments to the State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill [1316]. Amendment No. 1 amends clause 2 of the bill to provide for the commencement of new part 10A. New part 10A amends the Land Tax Act 1915 to insert a necessary reference to review by QCAT. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, agreed to. Clause 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4— Mr SPRINGBORG (3.06 pm): This clause relates to SPER being able to manage orders made under the Industrial Relations Act for unpaid wages, unpaid tool allowances, unpaid superannuation et cetera. I note that in his summing-up the Attorney-General addressed some of the issues I raised in my second reading contribution, including the fact that this has been happening and that there are a couple of judgements of the Industrial Court which have necessitated this particular amendment. My question for the Attorney is quite specific. Based on existing figures, can the Attorney outline how many matters in this particular category in the past year could have or would have been referred to SPER? Why are these orders not being enforced through the courts already? As I understand it, the existing civil provisions are very much maintained by the provisions of the State Penalties Enforcement Act. I would appreciate the Attorney providing clarification of that matter for the House. Mr DICK: I thank the member for his question. He did ask how many could have been registered in the last 12 months. I am not aware of how many possibly could have been registered. That is a hypothetical question. I could not possibly know how many potentially could have been registered. What I will say is that there are two judgements of the Industrial Court which bring into doubt the power for these decisions, judgements and orders to be registered with SPER. It is a decision that is made by the relevant body as to whether and how the matter is pursued. It would seem an effective use of an entity such as SPER—a large government agency—to recover outstanding sums, particularly, as I have said earlier in the second reading debate, those sums owed to vulnerable workers who have not been paid. This is done out of an abundance of caution to ensure that those people who need to be paid their money are paid and it is put beyond question and doubt that SPER has the power and ability to do that. Mr SPRINGBORG: To make it not so hypothetical for the Attorney, will the Attorney outline to the House how many of these particular matters have been referred to SPER in the last 12 months? Mr DICK: I am advised that court registrars have been referring unpaid wages and orders made under the Industrial Relations Act to SPER for enforcement over many years. There are about 200 orders on SPER’s database. So if it has been happening over many years, we would clearly have a large number that have been cleared. However, I would put on the record that the clearance rate for SPER has increased significantly year on year. In particular, the recovery rate for SPER has increased significantly since I announced these new measures that the parliament is now seeking to implement this afternoon. So there are about 200 orders on SPER’s database. SPER has taken action to recover some of these amounts through a range of compliance and enforcement measures. The amendment, as I said earlier, establishes referral to SPER as an additional alternative enforcement option under the Industrial Relations Act. This will assist employees, as I have said, who may have limited resources—a very good point that I failed to make earlier. Individuals may have limited resources to pursue the existing civil recovery processes which are not mentioned by the member for Southern Downs. Obviously it is sometimes expensive for individuals to use civil enforcement measures, particularly when the amounts involved are small. So SPER of course represents a very efficient mechanism for people who are owed small, but for them important, amounts to enable them to recover. The amendment, as I have said, validates past practice to ensure that orders referred to and enforced by SPER are valid. 11 Nov 2009 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3281

Mr SPRINGBORG: Given that the Attorney has indicated that over the time that these matters have been referred to the State Penalties Enforcement Registry some 200 matters have been referred, is there any indication whatsoever of the quantum of this particular amount in entirety for those 200 matters or the amount that is actually outstanding for those matters under this category which are currently with SPER? Also more broadly, whilst I understand and support the need for SPER to manage these matters and provide a cost-effective way of ensuring enforcement for those people who have limited resources, would the Attorney concede that a mechanism along those lines could be very advantageous for broader members of the community, particularly the business community which has had problems in dealing with the enforcement of court orders for amounts that have been unpaid by people that they have been dealing with, because the government is in a position to be able to refer these matters to SPER through its legislation? That is fair enough, but there is a range of people in the community who experience similar difficulties to those people who have suffered from unpaid wages, tool allowances and superannuation. Mr DICK: Again we see the internal inconsistency in the argument put by the LNP, but that is not new. We have the internally inconsistent argument in almost every debate that comes to the parliament. During this debate there was criticism of SPER in that it was not effective, that the debtor debts had been allowed to run up and that the powers had not been used. But now I am being asked to consider whether another form of moneys recoverable—that being cost orders—should be recoverable through SPER. It is not currently my intention to expand the power of SPER any further to recover any other moneys. It is the first that I have heard, I must say, since becoming the Attorney-General that, as alleged by the member for Southern Downs, there are individuals in the business community who are having trouble recovering cost orders. Obviously if they are large entities with cost orders there are usually significant enforcement mechanisms available to them under the general law. So I am not currently persuaded— Mr Springborg: I will write to you about that, Attorney. Mr DICK: Thank you. In cases where individuals had difficulty, I should indicate to the member for Southern Downs that I am happy to have a look at that and if there is anything that I can do I will do that. Another point I wish to make is that generally the matters that are referred to SPER are orders that are in the nature of quasi-criminal sanctions—that is, fines that might be levied by a government entity or a local government under a by-law or an order of a court in a criminal proceeding. In terms of expanding that while we cover the field with respect to wages, unpaid wages and other industrial allowances that may be ordered or made under the Industrial Relations Act, I think we need to be careful about expanding the scope of other civil orders that might otherwise be recoverable. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. Clauses 5 and 6, as read, agreed to. Clause 7— Mr SPRINGBORG (3.15 pm): This clause provides for a new offence provision relating to the concealing, selling, transferring or otherwise dealing with property subject to seizure. How much property is SPER aware of that has previously been dealt with in this way that it is unable to claim given that there is a need for this offence provision? Would it be wise to have a fine provision given that persons who would be concealing such property are being sought by SPER for unpaid fines? Mr DICK: This provision makes it an offence for a debtor who is served with a copy of a seizure and sale enforcement warrant to conceal, sell, transfer or otherwise deal with the property with the intention of defeating the enforcement of the warrant or adversely affecting the seizure or sale of the property under the State Penalties Enforcement Act. Consistent with an existing similar offence under section 68 of the State Penalties Enforcement Act which deals with charged or restrained property, the maximum penalty for this offence is 200 penalty units or three years imprisonment. As honourable members are aware, this government is taking action to apply the full force of the law, including recovery techniques, to people who have adamantly and consistently refused to pay their fines. In particular, initially in the trial period we are targeting vehicle immobilisation to be conducted in the Brisbane metropolitan area for individuals with debts of $5,000 or more. Unless it is a particular case—for example, a criminal injuries compensation order that might have been made—a debt of $5,000 does not appear overnight. It is usually through a pattern of behaviour or a course of behaviour where a number of fines have been accrued. With regard to individuals who have consistently broken the law and accrued large fines, we want to ensure that people who have turned their face against properly complying with the law do not seek to hide or otherwise ensure that property that otherwise should be capable of enforcement—including our rollout of the new trial of seizure and sale as well as vehicle immobilisation, but seizure and sale of property generally—do not transfer or otherwise deal with that property to avoid their obligation to pay. So it will be as a matter of course recovering, from the general outstanding fine pool, from those individuals, particularly large debtors, who have not paid and refuse to pay. 3282 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2009

Mr SPRINGBORG: I seek further clarification on one part of the question I asked the Attorney that he did not answer, maybe because he was concentrating on other aspects. Can the Attorney give the parliament an indication of how much property he is aware of that has been in some way interfered with or transferred and sold which has been subject to a seizure order under SPER? I understand that he may not have that information at hand and may wish to provide it at another time. Mr DICK: I am not aware of any property, per se, and in a sense nor could I be, because people who go out of their way to hide assets do not generally publicly advertise it. This is of course akin to the same sorts of mechanisms that exist in the bankruptcy of individuals and also the liquidation of companies where liquidators or trustees in bankruptcy can look behind legal mechanisms that individuals might create or sham transactions that individuals might enter into to defeat the trustee and bankruptcy or the liquidators. It is the same methodology here. We want to ensure that individuals do not go out of their way to defeat the necessary repayment of a fine. I am not aware of any dollar figure attached to that. It is, in a sense, a precautionary measure to ensure, as we harden up the SPER regime and roll that out, that people do not take flight with assets and seek to defeat the mechanism. So it is a proactive mechanism that we are looking at. But I am not aware, to answer the honourable member’s question, of any individual who has taken steps to defeat SPER by hiding those transactions. Often that is not known until there is some evidentiary basis, such as someone comes forward—a business partner—and says that they were aware that property might have been transferred or something like that. So until we have the evidence it is difficult to know the figure. But again, it is a proactive measure to ensure that people do not take steps to defeat proper claims in the future. Clause 7, as read, agreed to. Clauses 8 and 9, as read, agreed to. Clause 10— Mr SPRINGBORG (3.20 pm): This clause, and particularly proposed sections 73E and 73D, and the clause before this one deal principally with the cost of the storage of property seized to be dealt with later. Proposed section 73E in clause 10 indicates that SPER must pay any storage costs in relation to the property that is being seized but may recover them as costs of enforcement. I ask the Attorney- General: unless these costs are recovered, SPER—or the taxpayer, I suppose, to use the term rather loosely—is out of pocket. Is there a reason the government has decided that it may only move to recover the cost of storage and that it is not compulsory to move to recover the cost of storage? The Attorney-General has quite clearly and strongly indicated in other provisions of this amending legislation that the costs associated with certain actions under the enforcement provisions of the State Penalties Enforcement Act are going to be added to the debt owed to society, or to the community, by that particular person and that they are going to be recovered at a later date. So will the Attorney- General indicate why the costs may only be recovered rather than the costs be actually recovered for the storage of these seized items? Mr DICK: As the honourable member has previously noted in the debate on this bill, there are a range of civil enforcement mechanisms that other individuals are entitled to pursue in respect of debts owed to them as ordered by a court in general civil litigation. This legislation, as is set out in the explanatory notes, reflects many of those mechanisms. Proposed section 73E is a modified version of rule 831 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. Because this legislation relates to very significant debt recovery action, the government has reflected the processes in the general law for people recovering moneys under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, which would be the mechanism that would be adopted for a court ordered payment or a judgement of some other description in a general civil law proceeding. We have tried to find a balance between being harsh on individuals and fair—that there is a fair process available to them. So that is why these various provisions, particularly those contained in clause 10, reflect those aspects of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. In some ways it is a mirror of those rules. We see that as the best mechanism to adopt. Therefore, we have adopted those principles set out in proposed section 73E of the bill, as set out in clause 10, requiring an enforcement officer to store seized goods in an appropriate place or to give them to an appropriate person approved by the State Penalties Enforcement Registry registrar for that purpose. As the honourable member has noted, SPER is liable for any storage expenses but can recover those costs as enforcement. So like the general case where SPER has to spend money to send out enforcement officers to immobilise vehicles, which ultimately in the long term may be recoverable, in certain circumstances SPER will incur an initial sum to, for example in this case, store the vehicle. There might be a cost in seizure and towing, for example, at an earlier stage of the enforcement process. So SPER will then, of course, recover those costs, in the case of storage, as sale proceeds as set out in proposed section 73J, also in clause 10. 11 Nov 2009 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3283

So it ensures that the owner of the storage facility is paid. That is an important measure. If the government is going to use external storage premises to hold items, that storage provider should not be disadvantaged. Obviously, the government should be effective and proper in how it deals with the general business community. We want to ensure that the storage fee is paid irrespective of whether the full amount of the debt is recovered. That is a risk assessment that the SPER registry will determine when it works out what form of enforcement mechanism it will use. Obviously, SPER is not going to be seizing and storing items of very small value where the debt is not recoverable, but in the case of large items, where it is likely that the debt payable to SPER is recoverable through sale, that will be an appropriate mechanism to adopt. Clause 10, as read, agreed to. Clause 11, as read, agreed to. Clause 12— Mr SPRINGBORG (3.25 pm): Clause 12 relates to the cancellation or the suspension of a driver’s licence for people for non-traffic related matters. There has been some concern, which I have raised previously, as well as concerns raised by the civil liberties council and the RACQ, about the equity of this clause. For those people who do not hold a driver’s licence, would the Attorney-General indicate whether those people may be prevented from applying for a driver’s licence until such time as their debt to society is repaid? Mr DICK: No, that is not currently the intention of the government. This is only a measure to deal with individuals who hold a driver’s licence. It is not currently the intention of the government to expand it to individuals who may or may not at some time in the future—defined or undefined—apply for a driver’s licence. I understand what the honourable member is suggesting, but it seems a difficult and harsh measure to enforce on people who may owe a debt and who may not have a driver’s licence but who may, at some time in the future of their own volition, apply to have a driver’s licence. It seems to me somewhat of a crystal ball gazing exercise to determine whether SPER should spend money setting up some mechanism—how you would do it is beyond me—to note against certain individuals’ names that, for example, the Department of Transport and Main Roads would not hold that, if they were to apply for a driver’s licence, they would be unable to until they paid the debt. It seems to be a complicated process. In the case where an individual may never apply for a driver’s licence, the state would be put to considerable expense on a chance that something may occur in the future, the likelihood of which cannot be known in each individual case. Mr SPRINGBORG: Therefore, it would be possible under this particular provision that a person who has received a fine for a non-traffic related matter could have their driver’s licence suspended as part of the enforcement procedures under the State Penalties Enforcement Act but a person who has fines outstanding for non-traffic related matters under the State Penalties Enforcement Act would be able to apply for a driver’s licence and be granted a driver’s licence. At what stage would the State Penalties Enforcement Registry look at the fact that that person has a driver’s licence? I find it a little bit incongruous that a person might be able to apply for and get a driver’s licence when they have non-traffic related fines outstanding but another person could have their driver’s licence cancelled as part of an enforcement provision if they have non-traffic related fines outstanding. Mr DICK: Theoretically that is possible, just as someone who may owe a debt to SPER may not own a motor vehicle but then may purchase a motor vehicle and then become subject to the regime of enforcement under SPER. But it is not the government’s intention, of course, to make a register of people who are going to hold assets in the future that may or may not be wheel clamped. The honourable member needs to understand that these mechanisms will not be used on a wholesale basis. The honourable member is correct that we are expanding the suspension of drivers’ licences to anyone who has a fine registered with SPER as another tool in the armoury. But it will not be used, as some have suggested, for not paying dog licences or matters such as that. Obviously that would not be a sensible thing for SPER to do. SPER will target high-value debtors. Individuals in the Queensland community should be aware that it may happen, just as their vehicle may be immobilised. They are at risk of that occurring. But the intention is to target high-value debtors in the first instance. It is theoretically possible that there could be someone who has a debt due to SPER who does not have a drivers’ licence who then obtains a driver’s licence. That is always possible. But we think we will start with this method to look at suspending drivers’ licences of individuals who are already in the system, who are already high value and whom we know we can recover money from. That will be the aim. We will not know from everyone whom we seek to enforce against whether they have capacity, but we want to be sensible about how we go about it. 3284 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2009

The current situation is that if a person’s licence is suspended and they do not have a licence they cannot apply for one. If someone who did not have a driver’s licence when the debt was incurred subsequently obtained one and that was registered promptly with SPER, they could be liable to this method as well. Again, we will be looking at high-value debtors. We do not think we need to go to the next stage of setting up a very detailed register of people in Queensland who do not have a drivers’ licence who may get one and then act to recover money from them down the track. Clause 12, as read, agreed to. Clause 13— Mr SPRINGBORG (3.31 pm): Clause 13 relates to the process of vehicle immobilisation. Can the Attorney give the House some indication of how many debtors would be in line for immediate clamping upon the enactment of this bill? I understand that it is those debtors who have outstanding debts of $5,000 or more. I also understand that there is some consideration of individual circumstances. I would imagine that the Attorney would have an idea of how many debts of more than $5,000 are actually outstanding in the community that have been registered with the State Penalties Enforcement Registry. Proposed new section 108H(4)(c)(iii) was designed to give an indication that an immobilisation order would not be considered if a good behaviour order had been made against the particular person in question. Would the Attorney give an indication of in what circumstances he would actually conceive such an order and would that generally be for people who have only become known to the registry for the first time or a new offence or whatever the circumstance may be? Mr DICK: In response to the first part of the question, I advise honourable members that there are approximately 9,150 debtors owing $82.2 million who may be eligible for this new enforcement action. The reality is that we will not be seeking to wheel-clamp any vehicles owned by the 9,150 debtors. We will be starting small to make sure that the program is targeted and effective. As honourable members would be aware, we are starting in metropolitan Brisbane in a trial for 12 months starting on 1 January. People with debts of $5,000 or more must apprehend, though, that their vehicle could be clamped. If they owe that amount of money they are eligible and at any time their vehicle could be clamped in accordance with the amending bill going through the parliament. Individuals need to be on notice that that could happen at any time in accordance with the framework set out in the bill. As I say, that is the theoretical number of people who are eligible but we will not be going on a broadscale vehicle immobilisation campaign. It will be targeted, it will be precise and we want to make sure that the message is sent to the community that people need to come into compliance. That addresses the second part of the honourable member’s question. The whole reason for these legislative amendments is to ensure that people come into compliance—that they start engaging with SPER and start repaying money. As I said in my second reading speech, these are people who do not try, do not care and do not pay. I will address the point made by the honourable member on a number of occasions during the debate raised by individuals such as Terry O’Gorman, Gary Fites and other individuals. We do not believe that it is a disproportionate measure. It is a targeted and sensible measure for individuals who have not paid one cent back to the state in respect of debts and fines that have been incurred. The general Queensland community expects people to do the right thing. If people fall on difficult times— they lose their job and they end up needing Centrelink benefits to get by—SPER will take that into account. SPER may suspend repayment. There is also the option of individuals to enter into instalment arrangements for the most minimal amount but to ensure that the debt is repaid over time. SPER is very generous and very sensible in how it engages with people who are in difficult circumstances. I reinforce that and put that on the public record. It would be difficult to imagine anyone who becomes known to SPER for the first time whose debt would exceed $5,000. That would be most unusual, I would think. Compensation and restitution orders owed to victims might be of that category and, of course, the community would expect those individuals to be the first in line to repay people that they have injured as a consequence of a criminal act. Clause 13, as read, agreed to. Clauses 14 to 29, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr DICK (3.35 pm): I move the following amendment— 2 After clause 29 Page 51, after line 14— insert— ‘29A Amendment of s 151 (Information from commissioner of police service) ‘(1) Section 151(2), after ‘given’— insert— ‘under subsection (1)’. 11 Nov 2009 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3285

‘(2) Section 151(3) and (4)— renumber as section 151(6) and (8). ‘(3) Section 151— insert— ‘(3) Subsection (4) applies if the registrar advises the commissioner of the police service under section 151A about a particular immobilisation warrant. ‘(4) The commissioner of the police service may, on the registrar’s written request, give to the registrar information in the possession of the police service about any person known to the commissioner of police to reside at premises where the registrar proposes to have the warrant enforced. ‘(5) The information that may be given under subsection (4) is— (a) the person’s criminal history; and (b) whether any warning, including, for example, a warning about the health or behaviour of the person is recorded in a document in the possession of the police service; and (c) the details of any warning mentioned in paragraph (b). ‘(7) If information given to the registrar under subsection (4) is in writing, the registrar must destroy it as soon as practicable after the registrar is satisfied it is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was given.’.’. In order to reduce the risk of harm to enforcement officers executing immobilisation warrants, the proposed amendment to section 151 of the State Penalties Enforcement Act will authorise the Commissioner of Police to release information about each known resident of a property where an immobilisation warrant is to be executed. This information will include the criminal history and other information recorded on police systems, including warnings about the person. The information will be used to assess whether it is safe for an enforcement officer to attend a property to clamp a vehicle. Given the sensitive nature of the information to be provided by the Commissioner of Police, the proposed amendment requires the registrar of SPER to destroy the information after it is no longer needed—that is, after the risk assessment has been carried out or the immobilisation warrant executed. As I indicated earlier, this is a targeted, precise measure. We obviously do not want SPER enforcement officers to be placed at personal risk or jeopardy to recover a sum of money owed to SPER. We need to ensure that they are well informed before they engage in this important activity after, of course, a whole range of steps have been taken including due notice to the debtor of the proposed enforcement action being made along with those other measures in advance of immobilisation occurring. Amendment agreed to. Clauses 30 to 34, as read, agreed to. Clause 35— Mr SPRINGBORG (3.38 pm): This actually relates to a new section that enables SPER to communicate with the debtor using SMS technology. My question is specifically this: given that notice of service of last known address is deemed as notice of service, has this provision also been considered as the form of notice of service and will officers be able to use the fact of SMS contact as evidence in court of notification of impending enforcement action? Mr DICK: The short answer is no. That was canvassed during the second reading debate. I can inform honourable members that the act currently makes provision for the SPER registrar to certify that stated things happened or were done. This includes certification that stated documents were issued to or served on a stated person on a stated day. The registrar certification is evidence that this occurred. This provision of the act has not been amended to cover the sending of an SMS message to a debtor. This is because SMS messages are only intended to supplement the issue and service of official notices under the act. The short answer is no, but in an age when electronic communication in various forms and in many ways is growing and supplanting written documents, we want to ensure that there is a method of communicating with people and advising them of their obligations, including, for example, individuals who might be paying under an instalment payment and may fall into arrears under that. In many ways it is a form of encouragement for individuals to stay in compliance, but it is also a way for us to ensure that SPER can communicate with individuals through SMS text messaging. Clause 35, as read, agreed to. Clauses 36 to 38, as read, agreed to. Clause 39— Mr DICK (3.40 pm): I move the following amendment— 3 Clause 39 (Amendment of sch 2 (Dictionary)) Page 55, after line 21— insert— ‘good behaviour order see section 118(3).’. 3286 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2009

Amendment No. 3 inserts a definition of ‘good behaviour order’ into the dictionary of the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 to clarify that the existing definition applies where the phrase is used in this bill. Amendment agreed to. Clause 39, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 40 to 47, as read, agreed to. Clause 48— Mr SPRINGBORG (3.41 pm): Clause 48 relates to the disclosure or the utilisation of interstate information about people applying for a blue card. I note that in his summary earlier, the Attorney covered a fair bit of this subject. He indicated that he had some confidence that people had not slipped through the system. How confident is the Attorney of that? Is there any real indication that people with serious undisclosed matters have slipped through the system as a consequence of the current non- transferability or accessibility of this information across state borders? Will the Attorney be a little more specific about what background checks are going to be done on people already working in those fields? Will it apply only to new applicants? What effort and resources will the government put into addressing these concerns and to ensuring the effect of the blue card system is in no way tarnished by people who may have slipped through the net and been disqualified from obtaining a blue card had certain undisclosed interstate matters been made public at the time of the application? Mr DICK: I am not aware of any individuals who may have fallen through the cracks, as suggested by the honourable member. Obviously, there are individuals who will falsely represent certain matters. We cannot do anything more than have a strong regime to gather information to protect people, and young people in particular. As I advised the House earlier in my second reading speech and in closing the debate, there is a possibility that, in response to the first lodgements of teachers’ reapplications for blue cards after the exchange commences, the expanded interstate criminal history information could include criminal history information not provided previously to a screening agency. However, the relevant advice that the government has, both from the commission and the Queensland College of Teachers, is that they believe there will be minimal impact on currently serving teachers or individuals with blue cards. Of course, there can be no guarantees that certain information may not come to light from other jurisdictions. In fact, that is precisely why we are doing what we are doing, following a decision at a national level, through COAG. I can reaffirm to all honourable members that this is a national agreement agreed to by all first ministers to ensure there is a consistent regime across Australia and that information does not stop at the borders, so that people have relevant information that may have been retained in another jurisdiction. It will inform decision making in Queensland. Again, applying the precautionary principle of wishing to protect children, that is the appropriate mechanism, not only for Queensland but for all states and territories, to adopt. Clause 48, as read, agreed to. Clauses 49 to 71, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr DICK (3.44 pm): I move the following amendment— 4 After clause 71 Page 76, after line 16— insert— ‘71A Amendment of s 97 (Requiring witness to attend or produce document or thing) ‘(1) Section 97(3), from ‘attends’ to ‘notice given’— omit, insert— ‘is given a notice’. ‘(2) Section 97— insert— ‘(5) The fees and allowances must be paid at the time prescribed under a regulation.’.’. Amendment No. 4 amends section 97 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009. The amendment allows for a regulation to be made to provide for conduct money, that is, fees and allowances for witnesses to attend the tribunal. The money is paid by the party requiring attendance prior to the witness’s attendance. Amendment agreed to. Clauses 72 to 75, as read, agreed to. 11 Nov 2009 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3287

Insertion of new clause— Mr DICK (3.45 pm): I move the following amendment— 5 After clause 75 Page 78, after line 5— insert— ‘75A Amendment of s 195 (Functions generally) ‘(1) Section 195(b)— omit. ‘(2) Section 195(c), after ‘this Act,’— insert— ‘the rules,’. ‘(3) Section 195(c) and (d)— renumber as section 195(b) and (c).’. Amendment No. 5 amends section 195 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 to remove the word ‘noncontentious’ from the description of matters that may be stated in the QCAT rules as matters for an adjudicator to determine. This amendment removes an unnecessary fetter on the ability of the QCAT rules committee to develop a list of matters suitable for adjudicator determination. Amendment agreed to. Clauses 76 to 100, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr DICK (3.46 pm): I move the following amendment— 6 After clause 100 Page 89, after line 12— insert— ‘100A Insertion of new s 723A ‘After section 723— insert— ‘723A Amendment of s 4 (Main purposes of Act and how they generally are achieved) ‘(1) Section 4(2)(f)— omit. ‘(2) Section 4(2)(g) to (j)— renumber as section 4(2)(f) to (i). Editor’s note— Legislation ultimately amended— • Racing Act 2002’. Amendment No. 6 amends the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Jurisdiction Provisions) Amendment Act 2009 to effect an amendment to the Racing Act 2002 to remove a redundant reference to the racing appeals tribunal. The tribunal is abolished and its jurisdiction transferred to QCAT from 1 December. Amendment agreed to. Clauses 101 to 129, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr DICK (3.47 pm): I move the following amendment— 7 After clause 129 Page 109, after line 4— insert— ‘129A Amendment of s 50 (Commission may prosecute official misconduct) ‘Section 50(4), definition prescribed person, ‘a charge is laid’— omit, insert— ‘the start of a disciplinary proceeding for the official misconduct’.’. Amendment No. 7 amends what will be subsection 50(4) of the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 as a result of amendments made by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Jurisdiction Provisions) Amendment Act 2009 upon commencement of that act to omit the reference to ‘a charge is laid’ and insert ‘the start of a disciplinary proceeding for the official misconduct’. This change reflects the terminology that will be used regarding QCAT’s jurisdiction in respect of official misconduct matters. Amendment agreed to. Clauses 130 to 149, as read, agreed to. 3288 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2009

Clauses 150 to 152— Mr DICK (3.49 pm): I move the following amendment— 8 After clause 149 Page 114, lines 15 to 26 and page 115, lines 1 to 15— omit. Amendment No. 8 omits clauses 150 to 152 of the bill which amend sections 42 and 43 of the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2009. The purpose of the clauses was to omit the reference to the Nursing Tribunal in sections 42 and 43, which in turn amend section 392 of the Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999. The removal of the Nursing Tribunal reference was effected by amendments in consideration in detail to the Health and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. Therefore, clauses 150 to 152 as a consequence should be omitted. Amendment agreed to. Clauses 153 to 158, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clauses— Mr DICK (3.50 pm): I move the following amendment— 9 After clause 158 Page 117, after line 6— insert— ‘Part 10A Amendment of Land Tax Act 1915 ‘158A Act amended ‘This part amends the Land Tax Act 1915. ‘158B Amendment of pt 5 hdg (Grounds of objection or appeal) ‘Part 5, heading, ‘or appeal’— omit, insert— ‘, appeal or review’. ‘158C Amendment of s 28 (Restriction on grounds of appeal) ‘(1) Section 28, heading, after ‘appeal’— insert— ‘or review’. ‘(2) Section 28— insert— ‘(2) Despite the Administration Act, section 71(2), an application for review of the commissioner’s decision on an objection to an assessment may not be made on the grounds mentioned in subsection (1).’.’. Amendment No. 9 inserts a new part 10A into the bill to amend the Land Tax Act 1915. From 1 December 2009, under the Land Tax Act 1915, taxpayers will have a choice of either appealing to the Supreme Court or seeking a review by QCAT. Amendments have already been made to effect this. However, one further consequential amendment is necessary. The Land Tax Act 1915 has always prohibited appeals against objections to assessments on the ground that the value is excessive. This is because valuation appeals are made under the Valuation of Land Act 1944 to the Land Court as a totally separate process. Consequently, the Land Tax Act 1915 requires amendment to prevent reviews to QCAT on the ground that the value is excessive. Amendment agreed to. Clauses 159 to 197, as read, agreed to. Clause 198— Mr SPRINGBORG (3.51 pm): Clause 198 amends the Classification of Computer Games and Images Act following machinery of government changes earlier this year. As I understand it, this left some inspectors out of the legislation. Can the Attorney-General detail how many acts of inspectors previously conducted between March and now would have been by the letter of the law unlawful or in question or not covered as a consequence of having no effective transitional mechanism? Mr DICK: I am not aware of a particular number, but my advisers on the bill advise me that it is next to none—minimal. We have advised fair trading officers of this amendment so they will be ready to proceed with their normal work. Obviously they were aware of the possible problem with the law and have refrained, as I am advised, from acting as a consequence. I do not have a particular number for the honourable member but, if it is any at all, it will be a very small number indeed. I want to go back to something I said earlier in committee in response to a question concerning drivers’ licences raised by the honourable member for Southern Downs. In relation to the licence suspension issue, a licence suspension is notified by SPER to the department of transport irrespective 11 Nov 2009 State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3289 of whether or not a person holds a licence or a person has a department of transport customer reference number. If they apply for a licence at a later time it will be refused. SPER periodically sends notifications to the department of transport. If a person is issued a licence, next time the update is sent it will be cancelled. In a sense, it addresses the honourable member’s concern that there is a mechanism currently in place. Clause 198, as read, agreed to. Clauses 199 to 213, as read, agreed to. Clause 214— Mr SPRINGBORG (3.53 pm): Clause 214 amends the Disability Services Act. It arises out of the Carter review a little while ago to ensure that there is a proper mechanism for the protection of people who have certain disabilities and certainly for those people who need to be restrained or restricted from time to time. Prior to the implementation of these transitional provisions, there was no such protection for those people. As I understand it, this seeks to further extend those transitional provisions to enable the development of a proper regime for the protection of those people given the need to apply restrictive practices from time to time. I ask the Attorney-General: given that they have already had 18 months, what step is the government taking to ensure that this additional time will ensure that all of those people covered by this particular provision are going to be compliant? Mr DICK: I thank the honourable member for his question. I can assure the honourable member that the implementation of what Disability Services calls the Positive Futures Initiative is progressing with strong commitment and support through the Department of Communities working in partnership with disability service providers. This significant budget initiative has already gone a long way to achieving the recommendations put forward by Mr Carter. The Department of Communities is working with service providers to meet the full requirements by 1 October 2010. There are a number of materials, resources and activities that are being undertaken. These include individual service visits to discuss positive behaviour support, restrictive practices and the full scheme legislative requirements and to identify resources which may assist the service provider to progress towards the full scheme; access to specialist staff to provide advice and assessments and to assist in developing plans in more complex cases; access to training through the Centre of Excellence for Behaviour Support to upskill disability support staff in assessment and planning required to comply with the new policies; publication and dissemination of a range of materials that service providers may find of assistance, including restrictive practice identification tools, guides to developing a positive behaviour support plan and so on. I conclude by saying that service providers will be encouraged and assisted to progress to the full requirements as soon as possible. The Department of Communities through Disability Services Queensland is working very closely to ensure full compliance during the transition period and ultimately beyond. Clause 214, as read, agreed to. Clauses 215 to 238, as read, agreed to.

Third Reading

Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (3.57 pm): I move— That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Question put—That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time.

Long Title

Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (3.58 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. 3290 Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Provisions Bill 11 Nov 2009

FAIR WORK (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) AND OTHER PROVISIONS BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 27 October (see p. 2864), on motion of Mr Dick— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (3.58 pm): I indicate at the outset that the LNP will not be supporting the Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Provisions Bill before the parliament. I think it is probably a matter of public record that we actually do have some concerns with regard to the transfer of all residual matters under the state industrial relations system to the Commonwealth government, with the exception of certain matters in the public sector involving public servants in Queensland, local authority employees and judges, MPs et cetera. I have been on the public record for a number of years personally expressing my concern about the centralisation of the industrial relations system, and I remember some years ago I actually voted with the government in relation to that particular matter. So my view has been personally quite consistent on this throughout, and I will go through the reasons for that. I believe that this legislation is somewhat unnecessary and somewhat dangerous. I think in many ways it will deprive small businesses in Queensland—those trust businesses, those mum and dad small businesses—of the opportunity to be protected under the state industrial relations system, which I actually believe can and does provide better safeguards for them, better options for them and a simpler system. Not only that, as I will outline throughout my contribution, I do believe that those particular workers who are covered in Queensland by the state industrial relations system in the residual areas are going to be very, very seriously disadvantaged in their basic rights by actually being referred off to the Commonwealth industrial relations system, or Fair Work Australia as it is now known. Mr Finn interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: I will go through that shortly for the benefit of the member for Yeerongpilly and those members opposite. For any of us in this parliament who actually believe in the role of the states—the role of not only cooperative but also competitive federalism—I believe that the continuing distribution of our powers, our responsibility and our authority to the Commonwealth jurisdiction in many ways renders us increasingly irrelevant. Many people are actually raising that question out there as the state government continues to cede its responsibilities and further transfers its responsibilities to the Commonwealth jurisdiction. We then raise the question of what will ultimately be left in Queensland for the state to do in so many areas. Can the government actually blame people in the community for seriously engaging in this increasing debate about the relevance and the role of the state when it continues to do these sorts of things? I concede that there are provisions in this legislation under the referral powers that actually do allow a government—whether it is this government or any successor government—to give notice and to take back responsibility for those particular residual matters which have been referred to the Commonwealth. Most notably, if a matter has been referred in the main and if six months notice is given to the Commonwealth, those matters can be taken back by the state. If it actually relates to an amendment of the Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Provisions Bill, as I understand it is actually now called—the successor to Work Choices—that is, if amendments have been made to that act that are repugnant to the state government, the state government can give three months notice and it can take it back. I am not sure if there has ever been an example of a power or a responsibility actually being referred to the Commonwealth and this state government or any of its predecessors choosing to exercise the power to put it back under their responsibility. Mr Schwarten: The feds transferred the IR system back in the twenties. Mr SPRINGBORG: I bow to the superior knowledge of our parliamentary historian who indicated there was an incident back in the 1920s. What I would say to the honourable member for Rockhampton is that, notwithstanding that fact, there probably was not the burden of state matters which had been transferred to the Commonwealth jurisdiction at that time that we are seeing today. I mentioned before my fundamental belief and the belief of the LNP insofar as the federation is concerned about the notion of cooperative federalism— Mr Finn interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG:—and competitive federalism. It is very important for the states to understand that we can achieve excellence and some level of competitive advantage by actually developing systems, whether it be in the industrial relations area or any other area, that allow us to create an environment which is more attractive for businesses in Queensland than in other places around Australia. That is what a state government can do, because it has the machinery of government in a competitive way to be able to say, ‘Yes, we see the regulatory restrictions that operate in an IR system around the rest of Australia and we can overcome that in Queensland and provide an opportunity to use 11 Nov 2009 Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Provisions Bill 3291 that as a tool to attract businesses and make our businesses in Queensland far more competitive.’ Once the government completely centralises all of those matters outside the public sector jurisdiction to a Commonwealth jurisdiction—and I understand that Western Australia has yet to make up its mind on whether it is going to fall into this system— Mr Finn interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: This is a view that I have actually held for a long time. If the honourable member for Yeerongpilly looked at my statements both in this place and externally over the last few years, he would see that I have consistently said there is a need to maintain state control over industrial relations matters. You have put all your eggs in one basket, and that is not necessarily advantageous to a competitive industrial relations system. I think it is also fair to say that there may be advantages, arguably, for bigger businesses or companies to come under one system because they have the capability to deal with a lot of the complexity of it. Often they have legal divisions in their companies which are far larger than crown law in Queensland. But once we start to get down to the mum-and-dad sized businesses, I think we run into some very serious issues. If people believe that business in Queensland may not necessarily be worse off under this, they should look at what we have seen happen in recent times in Queensland under the awards harmonisation process, which is being undertaken for those awards which are remaining in state jurisdiction but for which there has been an effort to have harmonisation across jurisdictions under the guidance of the federal system. We know of the outcry there was with regard to the horticultural industry in Queensland, particularly the additional costs which were being proposed with the new award for piece workers for overtime, and in some cases we were looking at up to 25 per cent. It grew to such an extent that we saw the personal intervention of the federal industrial relations minister, Julia Gillard, who actually came in and put those particular new provisions on hold for at least two years after which they were going to be reviewed. That just indicates that having a federal system, a one-size-fits-all approach, even through an awards harmonisation process, is not necessarily advantageous for all businesses and all industries given their unique nature and often given the regional issues involved. Those sorts of concerns with regard to awards harmonisation did not necessarily relate only to the horticultural industry. They related, as I understand, to the hospitality industry, the tourism industry and potentially even others. They raised their concerns as well. Under this particular amendment that we are debating here today, the government will also be moving to take the City of Brisbane out of the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth and transfer it back under state responsibility. That will be in line with what it did only last year with regard to the decorporatisation of local government and actually taking responsibility for local government deliberately out of the Work Choices regime and placing it back under the state system. Because the City of Brisbane had its own separate act of parliament that had not happened, so we are going to have transferral back into the state system of all local government entities with the amendment to the City of Brisbane Act. The government sought to do that last year, in my view, because it was not serious. If the government were serious about having a truly competitive regime and having local government being able to have excellence in its contractual arrangements with its workforce, then it should have been serious about leaving that in the Commonwealth jurisdiction. When it went through things such as the forced amalgamation of local authorities, it was talking about efficiency gains and the capacity to achieve this through size and negotiation with the workforce—all of those sorts of things—but it seriously then restricted the capability of those local governments to do it under the federal regime, where many of them were actually supplanted at that time. I understand there is a case at the moment where one of the local authorities has a matter before a Commonwealth court to look at the constitutionality of what the state government has done in that area. The government wants to have its cake and eat it, too. I indicated earlier that some serious concerns had been raised regarding the transferral of these residual matters to the Commonwealth jurisdiction, and the honourable member for Yeerongpilly said, ‘How would workers be disadvantaged if there is a transferral of these particular matters?’ Mr Finn: I didn’t say that. Mr SPRINGBORG: Sorry, a member from your side interjected—and I thought it might have been you—and asked how these workers were going to be disadvantaged when these matters were transferred to the Commonwealth jurisdiction. I will quote from the Queensland Workplace Rights Ombudsman, who is an officer under the Minister for Industrial Relations. He makes some extremely salient points for consideration. I am going to read extensively from the annual report that he presented to the Minister for Industrial Relations. The report states— With serious consideration being given by the State to the referral of the remainder of the private sector industrial relations to the Commonwealth, it is important I believe to reflect on the possible effects on Queensland workers and businesses. 3292 Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Provisions Bill 11 Nov 2009

For example: Currently, permanent full-time and part-time employees of sole traders and partnerships employing fewer than 15 employees may seek reinstatement via the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission in the event of an unfair dismissal if they have more than three months service. If the industrial regulation of these employees is referred to the federal system, the qualifying time for a permanent full-time or permanent part-time employee to be eligible to apply for reinstatement would become 12 months. So there would be a lessening of the protection for workers in Queensland who are currently covered by the state industrial relations laws. That is very clear from the concerns of the Ombudsman. It continues— Employees of sole traders and partnerships employing 15 or more employees would have their qualifying period of service increased from three to six months. Again, that is a disadvantage for those workers. It states further— This would constitute a tangible reduction in the job security that these workers currently have. I will read that again— This would constitute a tangible reduction in the job security that these workers currently have. They are not my words; they are the words of the Workplace Rights Ombudsman in Queensland. The report states— Another area of concern arises in that all Queensland employees of sole traders or partnerships are currently able to access the services of the State Industrial Inspectorate if they suspect an underpayment of wages. State inspectors currently provide assistance by investigating complaints with a view to resolving wage related problems promptly and, where necessary, prosecuting for the recovery of wages. Moreover, the State Industrial Inspectorate conducts both systematic and random checks of time and wages records to ensure compliance in the area of sole traders and partnerships. Prior to July 2006, the State Inspectorate, under contract arrangements with the Commonwealth Government, delivered industrial compliance and information services in both federal and state jurisdictions. This service helped provide fairness to Queensland workers as well as employers given that wages book audits also help maintain a competitive level playing field between employers. With the withdrawal of this arrangement by the former Federal Government, the level of assistance provided by these officers was restricted to sole traders, partnerships and their employees. Without the restoring of an ongoing agreement with the Commonwealth allowing these skilled inspectors to resume this work these benefits will be lost. I am not aware that these particular matters have actually been dealt with under Fair Work Australia. The report continues— Also in today’s employment market for both blue and white collar occupations, the increasing trend has been for employment arrangements to be contained in contracts, be they registered with an industrial authority or simply a common law contract. Reflecting this, the Queensland Government has also provided its inspectors the power to investigate and claim above award rates if they have been agreed to by the employer and the employee by way of contract. This safeguard (s. 391(3)) was available to all Queensland workers but only if their employment was covered by State awards as the Commonwealth law does not provide the same level of protection. This too would be lost to Queensland workers should the industrial relations powers regulating sole traders and partnerships be handed to the Commonwealth. In Queensland, since the introduction of WorkChoices, only employees of sole traders and partnerships are still protected by this service while workers employed by trading corporations must instigate their own legal action if they wish to pursue a contractually agreed rate. A further concern is that, in the event of a transfer of the remaining private sector industrial relations to the Federal system, the audit and prosecution roles for all private employers, including sole traders and partnerships, would become the sole responsibility of the Federal Government’s Fair Work Ombudsman, and, if that’s the case, many Queensland employees of employers, big and small, could be excluded from assistance by virtue of the litigation policy recently adopted by the Federal Fair Work Ombudsman. To explain, the Fair Work Ombudsman’s litigation policy, adopted in July this year, describes certain circumstances and issues to be considered before providing assistance to workers where the amount to be resolved is less than $5,000.00. I am aware of one worker already denied assistance pursuant to this policy. (The relevant part of the Fair Work Ombudsman’s policy is attached at Appendix A). In my experience those provisions could affect Queensland workers who currently enjoy the safety net provided by the Queensland Government through the State Industrial Inspectorate. The motivation to pay employees correctly is not necessarily prosecution of employers but more likely the possibility of prosecution. If the likelihood of prosecution diminishes so too does the incentive to comply. They are very concerning and salient comments by our workplace ombudsman in Queensland. I would have thought if somebody should practically know of concerns, legitimate or otherwise, about referring residual private matters to the Commonwealth jurisdiction it should be this person who has had the opportunity to critique not only the former Work Choices legislation but also the legislation governing Fair Work Australia. It is quite clear from this particular report that, for workers in Queensland covered by those residual matters that have not yet been transferred to the Commonwealth, they are going to be seriously disadvantaged in so many ways. Unless the Commonwealth government is prepared to address those particular issues and provide at least the same protection for those Queensland workers who this government professes to stand up for, we should be very cautious about the transferral of those particular residual matters to the Commonwealth regime. I would ask honourable members who have not seen this to take the opportunity to look at it. They may have an answer to it, but I would be very interested to hear those answers and what arguments they can put forward to mitigate the concerns that have been raised by our Workplace Rights Ombudsman in Queensland, who has had the opportunity to practically look at the effect of changes starting with Work Choices about three-odd years ago. 11 Nov 2009 Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Provisions Bill 3293

Another amendment contained in the legislation before the parliament today that I want to touch on briefly relates to the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act. A couple of years ago this parliament put in place an enforcement regime for those retailers who sought to retail drug implements in the state of Queensland. I understand that other states, particularly South Australia, also have restrictions or bans on retailers actually trading in drug implements. We are talking about bongs, for example. I would seek clarification from the Attorney if anything I have said departs from the intention of this particular amendment before the parliament. However, under the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act, notwithstanding the banning of the domestic sale of drug implements within a state itself, a person who is retailing those drug implements or bongs is able to trade into another jurisdiction. They can plead ignorance or legitimacy when it comes to the sale of that particular implement. As I understand it, the Prime Minister has recently written to the various states asking them to put in place a particular provision that actually allows freedom of trade under the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act so that that loophole can be closed at least in the case of South Australia. After the passage of this amendment in South Australia those people who retail drug implements will not be able to retail those drug implements within their own state or argue that they have a legitimate right to retail them in another jurisdiction that has been covered under that act. I would seek clarification from the Attorney if my understanding of that is absolutely right. The question that I would like to raise is that, given there was bipartisan support in this parliament for an amendment moved by the opposition’s then shadow health minister to actually ban the sale of these drug implements or bongs—whatever you want to call them—why have we not hastened to seek exactly the same sort of confirmation, the same sort of authority that the South Australian government has to ensure that those particular traders who are retailing these drug implements outside of Queensland are able to be stopped from doing that? Clearly, they cannot retail them in Queensland but they can retail them outside of Queensland. My proposition to the government is to actually hasten on this particular matter and match its colleagues in South Australia to ensure that not only are these drug implements banned from retail in Queensland but also there is no opportunity for them to be sold in another jurisdiction under the Trans- Tasmanian Mutual Recognition Act. I would like to hear the Attorney’s response to that particular matter. There are some other minor amendments in this bill about which the opposition does not have concerns. Obviously, we support the amendments to the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act, but we do have concerns that another state has got in ahead of us. We should be going the same way. Certainly as a matter of principle or ideology we object to the transferral of the remaining private industrial relations matters to the Commonwealth jurisdiction for the reasons that I have outlined. Therefore, the LNP will not be supporting the bill which is before the parliament. Mr BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (4.23 pm): I rise today to speak against the Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Provisions Bill 2009, which is before the House today. The bill provides for the referral of the state’s industrial relations powers for the private sector to the Commonwealth. The bill will amend some 20 pieces of legislation and seeks, firstly, to nationalise the industrial relations system for private sector employers and employees, including the Commonwealth regulation of trustee companies and, secondly, transfer control of the industrial relations affairs with regard to certain local government workers, such as Brisbane City Council, to the state. The enactment of this bill will see the Labor government handing Queensland’s industrial relations system to a federal Rudd Labor government when in fact the Premier and previous Labor governments fought hard to keep the governance of the industrial relations system in Queensland. This bill is a Bligh Labor government sellout to the federal Rudd Labor government. The unions and the people of Queensland should not be fooled into thinking it is anything but another sellout. Government members interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: It only took them 30 seconds. It was a little longer than the record. Today we have seen the federal environment minister, the Hon. Peter Garrett, reject the Traveston Dam project—a decision that the Bligh government did not expect. Government members interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: I am getting to the bill. There is a connection. The Bligh government is ready to hand over its industrial relations power to the federal government as we continue to diminish the roles and responsibilities of state governments and move closer towards federalism. Following today’s announcement by the federal government about the dam project, how appropriate that we debate this bill today when— Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms van Litsenburg): Order! Will the member stay on the bill. Mr BLEIJIE: Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. How appropriate that we debate this bill today when federal and state government relations are severely strained. In fact, one of the great promises the Premier took to the March election was the notion that a state Labor government could deal easily with Canberra given the red nature of both governments. For the people of Traveston and the Gympie area, I am glad to say that this is an election promise that we are happy to see broken. 3294 Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Provisions Bill 11 Nov 2009

This legislation is in no way fair for the people of Queensland. Under the federal fair work legislation Queensland workers’ rights and safeguards will be far worse than they currently are under the state industrial relations system. The bill will take away the choice for Queensland private sector employers that are not corporations, such as sole traders and partnerships, as to which industrial system, state or federal, they are part of. This bill and the federal government’s fair choices act is anything but fair. As a result of the referral of the state awards to the federal government we will see an increase in union representation which could have severe impacts on the efficiency and the productivity of small businesses in Queensland. The transfer of all current private sector state awards in Queensland to the federal industrial relations system will see the abolition of the Queensland state industrial relations system in respect of the private sector. It will once again expose the small business owners of Queensland to unfair dismissal laws and will result in a complete overhaul of the existing requirements and responsibilities of employers in Queensland. It appears that the government is trying to fast-track this piece of legislation through the House so that the powers are referred to the Commonwealth parliament in time for the commencement of the Rudd Labor government’s new federal fair work system, which is due to commence on 1 January 2010. It is no surprise to see that the Prime Minister is micromanaging the Queensland government as he does the federal government. This bill makes amendments to completely unrelated legislation in relation to adoption and mutual recognition. The bill seeks to amend the Adoption Act 2009 in relation to how transitional arrangements for interim adoption orders are made. Why these unrelated pieces of legislation would be amended under a bill that is specifically related to industrial relations and the referral of power to the federal government is beyond me and completely absurd. This just shows how careless, irresponsible and completely absurd this Bligh Labor government is. Western Australia is the only state in Australia to remain unwavering in its decision not to refer its industrial relations powers to the Commonwealth. Queensland should follow suit with Western Australia and stand against this bill and the referral of the state industrial relations powers. It is about time the Bligh Labor government stood up to the federal Rudd government and did not simply hand over Queensland’s industrial relations power. I condemn the bill being put. Mr FINN (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (4.28 pm): No amount of pubescent moralising can escape the fact that those opposite are in here upset about another stake being driven into the heart of Work Choices. That is what this is about. It is about another stake being driven into the heart of Work Choices and those opposite know it. Opposition members interjected. Mr FINN: We will get to that. The bill before the House today is about the referral of aspects of the state industrial system to the federal system. It is actually the third plank, the third stake in the heart of Work Choices. Firstly, we saw in February 2008 the Workplace Relations Amendment Act. That act abolished the making of new AWAs, introduced or reintroduced the no-disadvantage test, started the modern awards process by reducing 4,000 awards to 150 and, together with the creation of national employment standards, began the development of the new safety net. That was the first stake in the heart of Work Choices, the first stake that the LNP were in here opposing at the time. The second plank with the Fair Work Act earlier this year established the safety net of minimum wages and conditions, implemented a new agreement framework with enterprise bargaining at its core and once again re-established the new independent umpire. Today’s bill is part of the next plank of that reform of the Australian workplace, and it is about restoring fairness and balance as the guiding industrial principle and with Queensland playing its part in a national industrial system. The benefits of that national industrial system are primarily, for me, about restoring the balance—a balance that was taken away by the previous Howard government. But it is also about efficiencies. It is also about creating a fairer, a less prescriptive and a less complex system than the Work Choices system that the Rudd government inherited. What it does is it clearly defines the system and the conditions for employees across the country. What we see in this referral is effectively the creation of a public-private system, with the private sector primarily in the federal system and the public sector primarily in the state system. It is disappointing that the member for Kawana and maybe even the member for Southern Downs come in here to make their statements and then leave. I see they are coming back. I said ‘maybe’, but I am glad the member for Southern Downs is coming back. I do not want him to miss a minute of it! It is noted that local government and local authorities remain in the state system as do some state owned corporations such as WorkCover, South Bank Corporation, Tourism Queensland and a range of state entities. Quite contrary to what the member for Kawana told us in terms of his suggestion that we were handing over completely the state system, the state system will retain some 300,000 employees. This is not a handover of the state system; it is a clear definition for each of the workers and the businesses in Queensland about which system covers their terms and conditions of employment. 11 Nov 2009 Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Provisions Bill 3295

What is clear though when we go down the path of national systems is that we are attempting to provide a stable system across the country, and that will no doubt bring a range of issues. As we start with cooperative federalism, where there is a need to be harmonising systems, we are always going to come up with a range of issues to be resolved, and some of those I will identify today. The minister quite actively engaged in negotiating the protection of conditions for Queensland workers as part of this agreement to refer workers to the federal system. Some of these issues included the preservation of state conditions under state awards, and workers not losing out was a position that was very strongly taken by the minister in our negotiation. Another issue resolved in negotiation was the continuation of Community Jobs Plan programs. These are community jobs programs structured under an order of the commission and include things like our Green Army, our Skilling Queenslanders for Work initiative and in previous years the very successful Breaking the Unemployment Cycle programs. We were able to ensure in negotiation that these programs continue. Another issue resolved in negotiation was the continuation of Queensland’s leading apprenticeship and trainee arrangements. These arrangements based on competency based training are able to continue under the terms that we were able to negotiate with the Commonwealth. I know there is some controversy about competency based training around Australia, but our way is leading the way and we are able to continue down that path in agreement with the Commonwealth. We were able to negotiate with the Commonwealth for the preservation of wage rates in the community and disability sector following a pay equity case in Queensland that provided adequate wage support for workers in this industry, and this included increases in wages for people in this sector of up to 38 per cent. We were able to play an active role in ensuring that those Queensland workers not only retained their wage conditions but also have an active role in partnership with the union representing those workers in engaging the Commonwealth to endorse a pay equity case into the future that will cover workers in this sector across the country. I note that in the member for Southern Downs’s contribution he mentioned that there were some differing conditions for workers in the federal system and the state system, but it is the height of hypocrisy to come in here and start defending unfair dismissal. It is the height of hypocrisy for him to come in here and say, ‘We don’t support this bill because it will implement a six-month limit on unfair dismissal where state workers have three months.’ I acknowledge that there are different systems, but for him to come in here and say that his position is to oppose it and give that as one of the core reasons is a disgrace. He has stood in this place supporting Work Choices, which was about abolishing unfair dismissal. The whole path of the Liberal-National Party in government federally was to abolish it. We have heard argument after argument in this place. Those opposite come in here and say that they have been consistent and that they have consistently supported business’s position to abolish unfair dismissal. Mr Springborg: So the workplace ombudsman’s wrong? Mr FINN: I take that interjection from the member for Southern Downs. I did not say that the workplace ombudsman was wrong; I said that it was the height of hypocrisy for the member to come in here and quote him when it has never been his position. To be fair in this, there remains an ongoing issue regarding the continuance of inspectorate work in Queensland. One of the jobs into the future for the Department of Justice and Attorney-General is to ensure that inspectorate services can be maintained in Queensland and that service delivery levels that we provide workers in the state system are delivered to workers in the federal system as well. I also should comment on the provisions that enable referral to be changed or amended. It was one of this government’s approaches in negotiation with the Commonwealth to ensure that where there was an amendment to referral affecting Queensland two-thirds of the referring states would be required to be in support of that amendment before it could be imposed by the Commonwealth. This ensured a fairly strong say for the states within the system as part of cooperative federalism. But we should note that one of the enabling factors for ending referral or amending referral is based on breaches of principles that are enshrined in the bill. Breaches of these principles will give grounds for triggering the process of ending referral. Those provisions are providing a safety net of minimum employment standards, freedom of choice to join a union and participate in collective activities, collective bargaining with no provision for individual statutory agreements, fair and effective remedies through an independent umpire, protection from unfair dismissal—all of these things that were not at the front line of the LNP or the Liberal-National government previous to the Rudd government. There has been extensive consultation both with business and with unions in the formation of this bill and it being brought forward to this House. I want to come back to the contribution of the member for Southern Downs. The member for Southern Downs, in coming in here and opposing this bill, puts himself on the outside of all of the business groups in Queensland. The Queensland Chamber of Commerce, for example, supports the referral. Business groups across Queensland, and indeed across the nation, support the referral and the creation of a national industrial system so they have certainty, less complexity and they know the conditions that they are under. Is the member opposite really coming in here saying that Queensland should be different from all of the other states? How does a business operate that way? This is one of the things that businesses say—that is, they want a consistent system in all of the states. 3296 Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Provisions Bill 11 Nov 2009

The position of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is for Queensland to have a different system. He bases that, like he does on his job cuts and his efficiency targets, on the Western Australian government. The Western Australian government is out of step with its business peak bodies in that state, and being out of step with business groups is what members of the opposition propose we do in Queensland when they come in here and oppose the bill. The fact of the matter is that those opposite simply want to hang on to Work Choices. They need to understand that no government had a better chance for cooperative federalism than the Howard government when it had Labor governments in every state. It could have dealt with Labor governments in every state and set up a cooperative model. Instead, it chose the path of ideological overreach. It chose the path of creating imbalance and a lack of fairness in the system. It was rejected because it offended Australia’s principle of egalitarianism. Part of this bill is about re-establishing fairness and stability in the system, and I commend the bill to the House. Mr MOORHEAD (Waterford—ALP) (4.39 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Legislation Bill 2009. Frankly, this is a reform that has been a long time coming. Reform is only possible if there is a federal industrial relations system that has the balance right. In that regard, the extreme Work Choices that preceded the Fair Work Bill was a barrier to any sensible reform. We should never forget in this place that Work Choices was the Holy Grail of conservative politics in this country. We heard nothing of Work Choices until the moment John Howard got control of the Senate. When that happened, John Howard delivered what he had always dreamed of, and that was Work Choices. I want to take some time today to deal with the quite extraordinary contribution from the member for Kawana. The member for Kawana has made this House quite used to his cheap and carping contributions, but this one was misdirected and just wrong. Let me take the member for Kawana through some of the basics of industrial relations. The member for Kawana tells us all that he is a lawyer but, obviously, he did not study labour law when he was at university. Let me take members through a few of the issues. The first one is about handing over powers to the federal government. Let us talk about Work Choices. Work Choices moved the Commonwealth government’s power over industrial relations away from the long settled jurisdictional basis of interstate disputes that had worked from 1903 up until 1996. Then on 27 March 2006, with Work Choices, a whole lot of businesses—anyone who was a financial or trading corporation—had Work Choices imposed upon them, because the Howard government moved the jurisdictional basis of its industrial relations legislation away entirely from industrial disputes. It did not matter if you were a financial or trading corporation; you had Work Choices whether you liked it or not. Ms Grace interjected. Mr MOORHEAD: Exactly. I take that interjection from the member for Brisbane Central. To some extent employers had the opportunity to choose whether they wanted to be engaged in interstate disputes and to take their industrial relations into a federal system. But Work Choices took that away. The member for Kawana has no understanding whatsoever. That choice was gone with Work Choices. What was left was a small group of people who were in unincorporated businesses, sole traders, partnerships and trust employment. Contrary to what the member for Kawana said, they were left, with no choice, in the state system. They could not move to Work Choices if they wanted to. Ms Grace: It was a hostile takeover. Mr MOORHEAD: It was a hostile takeover. They had no choice. They could not go to the federal system even if they wanted to, even though, prior to Work Choices, they could have if they were a party to an interstate dispute. So the argument about choice is a ridiculous proposition. It is muddle-headed and I just do not understand where the member for Kawana even got the idea that that was part of it. John Howard’s dream was to take over workplace relations in the country as a whole. He went as far as he possibly could with Work Choices. Let us not forget that in October 1996 Jeff Kennett handed over the entire Victorian industrial relations system—including the public sector, including unincorporated businesses—lock, stock and barrel to John Howard. Mr Shine: And sacked the judges. Mr MOORHEAD: He also sacked the judges, as the member for Toowoomba North rightly points out. Jeff Kennett handed over the lot. There was no choice whatsoever. He put everyone into John Howard’s 1996 laws. So the member for Kawana’s contribution was not only wrong but also the height of hypocrisy. I refer now to unfair dismissal. The submission put to this place by the member for Kawana was that this change would subject small businesses in this state to unfair dismissal. The member does not understand that they have always had it. They were always in the state system and had that protection. In fact, there is a greater probation period under the Fair Work Act than there is under the existing Industrial Relations Act. So there is greater protection for small business from unfair dismissal. Unfair dismissal is an important right for workers and it is under both the Queensland act now and the Fair Work Act. The member for Kawana says in one breath that this is about undermining workers’ conditions but then says it is also about protecting businesses from unfair dismissal. I cannot understand how he can try to walk both sides of the street. 11 Nov 2009 Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Provisions Bill 3297

Finally, I want to talk about WA and the reason that state has not handed over its industrial relations powers. That state has gone for the most pure, neoliberal deregulated industrial relations system in this country. Ms Grace interjected. Mr MOORHEAD: It made Work Choices look good. Western Australian workplace agreements were the first registered contracts in this country. They reduced any opportunity for employees to access awards. They removed the no-disadvantage test. They are some of the most insidious industrial arrangements that this country has ever seen. The reason the WA government will not hand over its industrial relations powers to the federal government is that it wants to protect that arrangement. The member for Kawana has no idea. This is a fair bill. It implements a fair work system. It not only protect workers but also reduces red tape for business. Those well-known socialist think tanks the AIG and the QCCI both say that industrial relations reform is necessary to reduce the impact of red tape on their businesses. The three major areas of red tape on business are industrial relations, taxation compliance and occupational health and safety. The federal government is working through the occupational health and safety process now. Taxation compliance will always be a challenge. This bill is a solution to one of the major contributors to red tape in this country, disparate industrial relations systems. This bill will be a major benefit for business in this state. It is something that the chamber of commerce has been asking for for years. It is something that the AIG has been asking for for years. We are trying to deliver it and the Liberal Party here is opposing us— Mr Kilburn: There’s no Liberal Party here. Mr MOORHEAD: The member for Chatsworth is right: the Liberal Party is no longer here. It is just the old Nationals trying to walk both sides of the street. Along with this transfer of industrial relations power, we will also have to lobby the federal government on a number of issues. One is competency based progression training arrangements. I know that the metal industry award in the federal regime has been able to maintain those competency based progression arrangements for apprentices and trainees, which has been where Queensland has led the country. I hope that the Commonwealth government can continue to support those arrangements and continue to use them in other industries. We also have to make sure that Queensland workers are protected with a proper enforcement regime. This legislation is a great example of cooperative federalism helping Australian workers and businesses to understand their rights and to be able to enforce them. I commend the bill to the House. Mr POWELL (Glass House—LNP) (4.47 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Provisions Bill 2009. The bill’s objective is said to enable Queensland to participate in a single national industrial relations system for private sector employers and their employees. It also allows for the Commonwealth to legislate exclusively for all employers in Queensland, except state and local government employers. I understand that there has been some confusion in determining whether corporations fall within the legal definition of a constitutional corporation, specifically whether employers and their employees are covered by the state or the Commonwealth industrial relations system, hence the reason for this bill. The bill takes the approach that it is making the industrial relations system more efficient. It refers to creating uniformity among corporations and making Queensland’s industrial relations laws consistent with the industrial relations laws of other Australian states. However, I must question how this new system will be any more efficient and any less confusing. In fact, it appears more complex and, therefore, more confusing than the current system. Perhaps workers’ protection and entitlements will be worse under the Fair Work Act than if they remained under the current state system. The minister in his second reading speech stated that there were five very important issues that needed to be agreed upon before the government even considered this change. I would like to refer to those issues now. They were— • the Queensland government having power to apply to Fair Work Australia to end industrial action in government owned corporations in specified circumstances; • preservation of Queensland’s unique and beneficial conditions for apprentices and trainees until Fair Work Australia reviews national conditions in this area; • protection of certain state entitlements of employees transferring to the national system, as outlined at clauses 30 to 44 of the bill; • preservation of certain award wage rates arising from Queensland Industrial Relations Commission decisions affecting the community and disability services sector; • a high degree of control and input by Queensland over changes to law and policy in the national system. After reading through these issues, it seems the proposed change of referral of power has the potential to create even more confusion in Queensland. One of these issues states that Queensland would have a high degree of control and input over changes to law and policy in the national system. This point seems to open wide the gates for potential confusion and, in essence, seems to give the state of Queensland almost as much right and voice as it has now. If Queensland wants to be involved in these decisions, why take this away in the first place? 3298 Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Provisions Bill 11 Nov 2009

In his second reading speech the minister also says that these issues are being worked through by state and federal officers. On the contrary, it seems this is only the beginning of thrashing out the various state and federal roles and responsibilities. In addition, the second reading speech refers to Fair Work at the federal level being fairer, less prescriptive and less complex than Work Choices. However, it does not say how this will happen or in what way. In fact, my experiences of where some industries, particularly those in Glass House, have been referred to national award structures is that possibly the opposite is actually true. An example is, as the member for Southern Downs raised earlier on, what has been occurring in the horticultural industry over the past 12 months. In an attempt to apparently simplify the award structures, the government paid little heed to the fact that the horticultural industry award would increase Australian fruit and vegetable farming business labour costs by 25 per cent or more. All of those costs would have been passed on to us as consumers at our local Coles, Woolworths or IGA or any one of the fruit and vegetable stores on the side of the road that we might stop at. It stipulated a limited span of working hours at ordinary rates. This would definitely have affected orchard work and work hours in the packing sheds. According to Stuart Swaddling, Chair of the Horticulture Australia Council, this award would have been the single biggest calamity—I might pause here and note also that the federal minister for the environment has possibly saved this state government from what could have been the second biggest calamity if the Traveston Dam had gone ahead, and I applaud that decision today—that the horticultural industry nationally has faced in its history, resulting in reduced hours for regional workers at the very least and a significant loss of regional jobs if businesses went to the wall. It would have had the potential to impact on the viability of 30,000 businesses nationally, not to mention that it would have placed an unnecessary regulatory burden on small businesses. It is exciting to know that, as a result of successful lobbying by so many, including Growcom and local fruit and vegetable growers in the electorate of Glass House itself, Minister Gillard has revised her direction to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. Similarly revised directions to the AIRC for the retail and hospitality industries have led to better outcomes for those industries. The horticultural industry and horticulturists in Glass House in particular live in hope that this will reap a far better outcome for that industry. It is indicative that nationalising awards does not necessarily reduce confusion or red tape. My sense is that the further we move away from the industry operators on the ground who are trying to implement these awards, the more challenging such negotiations become. I therefore acknowledge this bill but suggest that the state government proceed with immeasurable caution. Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—LNP) (4.53 pm): Henry Lawson, a great Australian and a republican, said in The Shearers— They tramp in mateship side by side— The Protestant and ‘Roman’— They call no biped lord or ‘sir’, And touch their hat to no man! He was indeed describing shearers in Australia, but he really was referring to the concept that we are all in this together and no one group has an exclusive right over another. In fact, we need to support one another. On Remembrance Day this is even more critical, when here today we are debating a fair work bill with referral of powers to the Commonwealth. Some of our state’s employees are involved but not all of them—only private ones. This bill should be called the ‘opportunist bill’. It would seem that the logic is that it is time we transferred to a national award system whilst there is a federal Labor government and state Labor Party members are very uncertain about their own futures. They should be today because their dam at Traveston was cancelled. The justification for this bill is that for years all major groups have asked for a progression to a national award. The Work Choices program has been severely criticised by the incoming federal government, and Queensland under Bligh and Labor has discovered that we here in Brisbane are part of the Federation. I intend to discuss each part of the justification in detail and explain how these are false assumptions. Again, the devil is in the detail. We in the LNP will not be supporting the bill. I am a true federalist and I see no problem with the state ceding power to the Commonwealth where it is for the benefit of the public and the nation. I doubt that the motive in this case fits this test of federalist validity. I say this because the state has exempted employees of state and local government but has included all other employees of all employers in Queensland. Interestingly, it moves the Brisbane City Council employees across to the state award system. A true federalist would embrace all or nothing on this issue. I find it somewhat incongruous that this separation is being made today, on Remembrance Day of all days. Workers’ protection and their entitlements will be worse under the Fair Work Act than if they remained under the current state system. Workers are being sold out by this government and its unions. 11 Nov 2009 Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Provisions Bill 3299

Banjo Paterson in 1915 said in We’re All Australians Now— The fisher-boys dropped sail and oar To grimly stand the test, Along that storm-swept Turkish shore, With miners from the west.

The old state jealousies of yore Are dead as Pharaoh’s sow, We’re not State children any more— We’re all Australians now! Does this Bligh Labor government understand what sacrifices were made by everyday Australians who just happened to have been lucky enough to be born Queenslanders, too? I do not think it does. They did not pick and choose; they supported their mates and stuck together as Australians. Rules made for them were for all Australians as all or nothing. If it is not good enough for one group, it is not good enough for the others, too. In other words, it is all in or no-one in. I see no rationale in the minister’s argument to separate groups so as to embrace the vesting of power to the Commonwealth. He states in his second reading speech— ... the referral of state power is cast in such terms as to prevent the Commonwealth from unilaterally changing the scope of the national system. This justification is to allow Queenslanders to continue to have access to decent wages, collective representation and recourse against unfair dismissal. Queensland is now the second most expensive state in Australia in which to live. Regional Queenslanders have the highest collective food prices in Australia. So by his logic, since unions are nationally represented then this must be about unfair dismissal. These unfair dismissal laws, as sacrosanct as they are to Labor philosophy, undermine the job security of Australian workers more than any other law. Irrespective of what I hear over the chamber about Work Choices, reimplementing these changes would probably do more harm in this market than ever before. Unemployment currently is static due to a hoarding of staff in the recent hiccup downturn due to the cost of hiring, HR and training of staff. Most staff are working 80 per cent of previous hours, holidays are longer and overtime is severely curtailed. Whilst unemployment may rise a bit more over the forthcoming year, it will not fall because there is always a lag in unemployment after the financial downturn. This particular time the length will be longer due to special factors that have occurred. The serious issue of increasing casualisation of the workplace, particularly on the Gold Coast— and it particularly affects young people—comes to order and it actually will increase. As I say, this change in laws will exacerbate the use of casualisation of the workforce and on the Gold Coast may lead to a rise in unemployment in the under-30 age group at a time when it is very difficult for apprentices, graduates and unskilled young people trying to support themselves to find a full-time position. This is the impact of ideologically driven laws enacted by an armchair socialist who feels that they have the right to speak and act for the public. The minister has not been reading the essays of Prime Minister Rudd. He is a centralist federalist. He believes government should be at the centre as hub and spoke. He does not support states’ rights, irrespective of the minister’s belief that he has made sufficient protection for Queenslanders. Workers will be worse off under his plan and his view of paternalistic federalism is a poor cousin of competitive federalism. I do not think members need a lesson in the history of our Constitution, but I highlight the fact that Griffith, Deakin and Barton joined in equal partnership. I refer to the preamble of the Constitution, which states— Mr Shine: Things have moved on, Alex. Dr DOUGLAS: The member for Toowoomba North will enjoy this; this is for him— WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established... I guess many consider this document irrelevant, both at this time and as part of the discussion, but I think members might be surprised to know that the Council of Australian Governments, from which these current laws are being generated and from where the template of bills referred to divesting state powers to federal powers comes, is the derivative of the same group that drafted the Constitution. The fundamental basis of the Constitution is that no one group should suffer unfairly as a result of this federal linkage. That is competitive federalism. It is the concept that unified we have a greater chance of succeeding and will have more benefits, yet we can take advantage of the competition for processes to achieve that and save costs. 3300 Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Provisions Bill 11 Nov 2009

This bill has none of that. It is all about fear. It dumps all our eggs in one basket, but public servants are saved because they would react and rise up. That is the presumption. Yet other employees and even those of trustee companies are now to be drawn under this transfer of powers. The Constitution dictates none of these roles and, whilst clearly the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth overrides that of the state, the Constitution makes it clear that the states are to operate in their own jurisdictions. Ms Grace interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! Member for Brisbane Central, you are being repetitive. Dr DOUGLAS: I am going to the separation of these issues, Mr Deputy Speaker. The provision of the rule of labour is not dictated as a federal responsibility. It is being used as what Labor feels is a safe haven, a refuge of last resort, when clearly the constitutional right of an individual in any state or territory is protected under the Constitution. Chapter 6, part 117 states— A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State. Workers on state awards are protected under the Constitution and this provision of the bill is unnecessary. In his speech, the minister justifies the Commonwealth regulation of trustee companies, which is anticipated to have the advantages of providing modern, efficient and effective supervision of trustee companies; removing unnecessary regulatory burdens associated with duplicate licensing reporting across jurisdictions; free market entry mechanisms for promoting competition; and providing for better information and access as cost-effective and timely dispute resolution mechanisms. This has been done with the flick of a pen and even the minister notes how cooperative the Rudd federal Labor government has been in its dealings with the states, including Queensland, in introducing the national industrial relations system. The trustee companies that cover 20 per cent of Queensland’s workforce outside the Public Service and local government are swept up under the Commonwealth legislation. Most of those employees have no idea that this affects them and I do not accept that the Bligh Labor government speaks for them. Sure, it is possible, at a later date, to move back to state jurisdiction and some employers have supported this current move. The minister even quoted the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry on what would be an ideal sustainable workplace regulation system. I put it to the House that he quoted that out of context. The President of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland, Beatrice Booth, has highlighted the issues that I have raised with regard to employees of constitutional corporations and employees of trusts. She raised the spectre of unfair dismissal laws, the fact that small- and medium- sized employers will have to adjust to the 10 national employment standards and the new modern award changes. The unions are winners here, with greatly enhanced union representative rights and newly untested bargaining and good faith obligations, yet unions represent only 20 per cent of employees and proportionately much less of the small- and medium-sized businesses. For big business, the changes to bargaining and agreements are the greater challenges and this is where the unions are demanding a greater say. That is the big end of town. I feel that what is being said is, ‘Who cares about the 80 per cent at the other end?’ Again we are seeing different rules for different groups. On Remembrance Day of all days—and remember, this is a shocking message of disunity and lack of harmony—laws need to be fair to all and fair work laws must operate in a way that will not be lopsided. If they do not, which looks probable, the end result will be industrial disharmony. Labor members need reminding that labour unrest, including strikes, are greater by 300 per cent in times of Labor administrations. Our economy suffers, the public suffers and there are no winners. As with war, everyone is a loser. The transition will only magnify the pain that employers and employees will suffer every time this occurs. Employers lose confidence. Their faith and trust in the system declines. Their needs for employees are directly proportionate to their confidence in the system to deliver the things they need to enhance their business success. Businesses have to be profitable to survive. Any law that renders the business an unreasonable risk has to be carefully considered, because it will directly impact on employment. I need to remind all honourable members that the economic times are fragile. In Australia the era of large industrial employers is in rapid decline due to the impact of massive amounts of cheap and surplus labour directly to Australia’s north. Construction and mining industries, even though they are unique industries, have a critical relationship to both interest rates and commodity prices respectively. What goes up will come down. Changing jurisdictions is not going to change any of those factors. The defence of a minority group by unions in a federal jurisdiction and in a global world has no relevance where the cost of labour, by any definition, dictates where that labour will be supplied. 11 Nov 2009 Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Provisions Bill 3301

There are a few other amendments in the bill that I entirely support, such as the prohibition of the sale of prescribed drug paraphernalia and the transitional arrangements for interim adoption orders, and they are appropriate. In his concluding words the minister correctly states that he is seeking balance, but the federal legislation that I have read appears to be significantly extending union power and providing a disincentive for employment. That relates to the unions being granted access to non-union records, expanded union rights for recruitment, a lack of compulsory arbitration where enterprise bargaining fails, the reimplementation of unfair dismissal laws that define small businesses as having 15 employees, issues relating to the transition of business and greenfield issues. As a nation we would be going backwards and becoming very uncompetitive as a sovereign nation by basically rubber-stamping a bill and ceding authority to the Commonwealth. In conclusion, I refer to a wonderful piece written by Bertrand Russell in 1914, which states— All this madness, all this rage, all this flaming death of our civilization and our hopes, has been brought about because a set of official gentlemen, living luxurious lives, mostly stupid, and all without imagination or heart, have chosen that it should occur rather than that any one of them should suffer some infinitesimal rebuff to his country’s pride. Did members know that in a modernist world those words would include extreme antibusiness idealists—read ‘armchair socialists’—who cannot see that they should not just take the time to work out a solution that fits within their community and Queensland’s standards. Those words still apply. I think the lesson in the bill is that it is a declaration of retreat by Labor to shield itself under Commonwealth protection, when all it needs to do in difficult times is honestly say what it wanted from employers in this state and prove to those employers and their employees that the end justified the means. I do not believe the minister has made his case. Mr WATT (Everton—ALP) (5.09 pm): Finally today we see the opposition show its true colours. Ever since I was elected to this House, in March this year, I have cringed as I have watched the opposition, the LNP, try to reinvent itself as the new progressive force in Queensland politics. LNP members have tried to pretend that they are the friend of the worker. Bizarrely, we have had the self- described capitalist, the member for Clayfield, talk up the benefits of nationalisation of public assets. We have seen them try to pretend that they are the friend of the environment. All around they have tried to become a caring and sharing LNP. Now I have heard it all. We had an LNP member, the member for Gaven, claiming the words of the worker’s poet, Henry Lawson, to support his case. I really have heard it all. Until today, we have only seen a couple of areas where LNP members have displayed the real extremism that is the fundamental basis of their core beliefs. We have seen their fundamentalist hatred of de facto and same-sex couples when we debated the adoption legislation. We have seen their willingness to trash vegetation with bulldozers. Today, led by the member for Southern Downs, we have seen the LNP return to their core belief that the interests of big business always— Mr Springborg interjected. Ms Jones interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! Member for Southern Downs, I will not have you disrupting the chamber, nor ministers on my right. The member for Everton has the call. Mr WATT: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Finally today we have had the LNP, led by the member for Southern Downs, return to its core belief that big business interests always prevail over those of working families. The truth is out: the LNP is the same old party of Work Choices. Even the leading Liberal in the federal parliament, Joe Hockey, has admitted that Work Choices is dead but it looks like the memo has not made its way up to Queensland. Then again, I am not that surprised because Joe Hockey is a Liberal and we know that there are no Liberals left in Queensland. The LNP has revealed that it is still the party of Work Choices. I was talking with my good friend the member for Waterford earlier and he reminded me of the Spotlight case that was highlighted in the Work Choices campaign. Under Work Choices, Spotlight workers were forced to trade away all of their conditions—public holiday pay, various leave loadings and all sorts of other conditions that had been fought for over many years—for how much? For an extra 2c an hour. That is what we are talking about here. The LNP wants to stick with that system, which would see disadvantaged workers exploited by their employers—to trade away all of their entitlements for the likes of 2c an hour. So every time from here on in until the next election when we see the LNP pretend to be the party of the worker, to be the party of average working families in Queensland, we need to remember this day, when it has stood up for Work Choices yet again. This bill provides for the national system to cover all of the private sector and some commercial elements of the public sector including government owned corporations. The Queensland system will continue to cover the 300,000 employees in the state Public Service and local government, including Brisbane City Council and local government owned corporations. Throughout negotiations for this bill and its federal equivalent, the Queensland government has been clear that several conditions need to be met to ensure the security of Queensland workers as part of the referral of power. This bill includes a number of provisions which limit the Commonwealth from making amendments to the national system laws which impact on Queensland’s referred jurisdiction without the agreement of the Queensland government. 3302 Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Provisions Bill 11 Nov 2009

It is very important that we do retain the ability to stand up against Commonwealth proposals to change these laws. We do not want to go back to a situation where we have an extreme federal government, like we did under the Howard government, that wants to unilaterally impose an unfair industrial relations system on Australian and Queensland working families. That is why it is important that the Commonwealth is limited from making these amendments without the agreement of the Queensland government. There were a number of very important issues that Queensland had to consider before it agreed to refer this IR power. Therefore, a number of conditions were sought on this referral. They included preserving Queensland’s unique and beneficial conditions for apprentices and trainees until Fair Work Australia reviews national conditions in this area. We also imposed a condition that we wanted to preserve certain award wage rates arising from Queensland Industrial Relations Commission decisions affecting the community and disability services sector, and that is the aspect that I would like to focus on in my comments today. It is of great significance that, as part of the referral of industrial relations powers, the Commonwealth has agreed to maintain the hard-fought gains of two recent landmark decisions of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, which will contribute significantly to addressing pay equity for the workers in the community and disability sectors. Workers covered by the Queensland Community Services and Crisis Assistance Award and the Disability Support Workers Award have achieved significant increases under these two decisions. Pay equity is important in appropriately valuing the contribution made by women in paid work. As such, pay equity not only is an industrial relations issue but also concerns women’s broader social and economic standing. A comparison was made between the community and disability sectors and the Public Service, local government and engineering sectors as part of this case. The work being performed in the community sector was found to be comparable with these other sectors. However, community and disability sector employees received lower wages than those in other sectors. Employees were leaving the community and disability sectors in droves for other jobs, and that had a significant impact on the ability of the community and disability sectors to provide the essential services that they provide. Under the most recent pay equity case, workers under the Queensland Community Services and Crisis Assistance Award received a wage increase of 13.8 per cent to 37.9 per cent to be phased in over four years. I have spoken before in this place about my pleasure that the state government has risen to the occasion and passed on supplementary funding to many of the non-government organisations that provide these services. These pay increases will stem the tide of skilled workers leaving the community and disability sectors in search of higher wages. The arrangements have ensured that community and disability sector workers moving to the federal system will continue to benefit from the pay equity decisions. The federal government has agreed to preserve wages and entitlements in the Queensland awards and extend those wages and entitlements to certain other critical services in the sector where these organisations are being fully funded to meet the wages and entitlements. The Queensland government has long been at the forefront of addressing pay equity, and Queensland is frequently referred to as the most progressive in the country in that regard. This bill will ensure that workers in these vital community sector professions can participate in a national industrial relations system yet retain the hard-fought, superior entitlements that they so sorely deserve. In conclusion, I, like many other members on this side of the House, am amazed at the opposition’s decision to oppose this bill. We really did think those opposite had heard the message from the last federal election, when Australians voted in droves against Work Choices. As I say, it appears that, as with so many other issues, the National Party members in Queensland are slow learners. They are stuck in the past. They want to go back to the past of Work Choices. I am really pleased that I am a member of a party that heard that message from the Australian people and that stands for fair working conditions for all working families. That is why I commend the bill to the House. Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (5.16 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Provisions Bill 2009. The policy objectives of the bill are to enable Queensland to participate in a single, national industrial relations system for private sector employers and employees and to ensure that Rudd and Gillard are able to control all employment relations in this state to ensure that the unions are paid back for their support of the federal Labor Party during the previous federal election. In March 2006 the Commonwealth Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 commenced and since then the Commonwealth has regulated the employment relationships of employers that are trading or financial corporations and their employees. The new Commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009 regulates the employment relationships of constitutional corporations and their employees. This bill will allow Queensland to participate in a national system of industrial relations for the private sector from 1 January 2010 by referring power to the Commonwealth to make laws with respect to all private sector employers and their employees, regardless of their corporate status. 11 Nov 2009 Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Provisions Bill 3303

The bill refers certain matters relating to industrial relations and employment to the Parliament of the Commonwealth to enable the Commonwealth to make laws about these matters for employees and employers in Queensland’s private sector who would otherwise be outside the reach of the Commonwealth’s legislative power. This is a frightening statement which gives complete power to a Rudd-Gillard Labor federal government and is yet another example of the Bligh government bowing to the unions to rationalise industrial relations laws—and this from the same Premier who previously fought to retain state control of industrial relations under a Howard government. Bligh argued that workers’ protections and entitlements would be worse off under the Commonwealth act than if they remained controlled by the current state systems and make the state industrial relations systems all but obsolete. An intergovernmental agreement, which will be signed by each referring state, the territories and the Commonwealth, underpins the bill. The bill is consistent with that of the other Labor run states that have referred or intend to refer their private sector industrial relations powers to the Commonwealth, whilst previously these same governments resisted on all fronts a nationalised system under a coalition government. The Liberal National Party’s policy, even under Work Choices, has always been to give workers the choice as to which industrial system they want to be in. The Liberal National Party has previously supported competitive federalism, which this bill does not promote. Indeed, it removes this provision to allow workers a choice. Today’s Traveston Dam backflip shows that the Commonwealth—read Kevin Rudd—is more interested in getting re-elected and is prepared to set ‘Captain Bligh’ and her crew adrift so that he does not sink. I do not support this bill, which is merely unions flexing their muscle to get Rudd re-elected and to keep him in line with their agenda. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (5.19 pm): I rise to speak to the Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Provisions Bill 2009. When this bill was tabled, it was my intention to support it, and I will explain some of the circumstances that have transpired since. In the minister’s second reading speech, he stated— ... the Rudd Labor government has been very cooperative in its dealings with Queensland and the other states and territories on the introduction of a national industrial relations system. The resulting system sets aside the Work Choices approach to industrial relations and restores the balance of power to best look after the interests of both employers and employees. I think that cooperative approach is sound and always has the potential to have a constructive result. The minister also stated— The Queensland government has not taken this step lightly and not without extensive consultation with Queensland employers and unions. Given the amount of union activity in my electorate concerning actions this government has taken, I had a very recent conversation with a union delegate in my electorate who expressed a grave concern about the proposal to hand over powers to the Commonwealth and I was told that their union did not support it. I acknowledge that there are a lot of unions in the state and there is a lot of disquiet within the union movement with the state government over a number of issues, not the least of which is the privatisation issue. However, this particular representative has been a very staunch supporter of the Labor Party and I was very interested to hear that union’s perspective and the perspective of others. The information that I received was that workers will be worse off because, in a lot of instances, conditions under the state awards are better. I have listened to the debate so far, and I particularly note the interjections from the member for Brisbane Central as she has not spoken yet. I acknowledge her significant involvement in the union movement and in workers’ rights so I have listened to those interjections with some interest. The delegate that I discussed this with also said that the advantage in remaining under the state system is that there are 100 years of legislation, history, record and experience, and he is very reluctant for that to be lost. I notice that there are conditions in the bill where the Commonwealth cannot change the situation in the state without the state’s agreement. My concern with that is that over time reference to the state will diminish. I note that there are 300,000 employees in the state Public Service and local government, including the Brisbane City Council and local government owned corporations, who are exempt from this piece of legislation. I also note that, amongst a lot of the interjections, there have been statements from the government side that big industry—that is, the businesses of Queensland—are in favour of that. However, I remain concerned on the basis of my discussion with union representatives. The Work Choices legislation has been repeatedly raised in this chamber in relation to this piece of legislation, as expected. There were huge problems with the Work Choices legislation. It disadvantaged workers significantly, and I have supported legislation that has been brought into this chamber to ameliorate the impact of Work Choices over time. It was disproportionately disadvantageous to workers. Whilst it is not true to say that it has completely demised, there has been a significant change in federal legislation to reduce those impacts on workers. 3304 Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Provisions Bill 11 Nov 2009

There is another piece of information that concerned me, and I will again quote the Attorney- General’s speech. He said— There is no doubt that the referral of Queensland’s private sector industrial relations system to the federal jurisdiction will result in some changes to the work undertaken by industrial inspectors in Queensland. However, we are committed to ensuring a smooth transition to this new system and to making certain that employment security is protected. I take it from that there are some jobs at risk and I take it that they are in the industrial inspectorate. I have stood in this chamber before talking about privatisation of government owned entities and the transfer of power in this instance where job security might be talked about, but it is very difficult to guarantee once the transfer or privatisation has occurred. It is fine to talk about it and great to have that intent, but in the long term it is very difficult to guarantee. Whilst I acknowledge the statements that were made by the Attorney-General, as I said, the concerns expressed to me by the delegates in Gladstone give rise to my rethinking of my initial support for the legislation. I will listen with interest to the member for Brisbane Central and the minister in his response. However, at this time, it is my intention not to support the legislation. Ms GRACE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (5.25 pm): I rise this afternoon to support the Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Provisions Bill. I also stand in this House proud of the work that we did in the Your Rights At Work campaign in this state. I led that campaign in Queensland for two years and was part of a national team that fought bitterly. We went on a massive education campaign against what could only be described as the worst draconian laws that the Howard government introduced into this country. We were very successful in defeating the Howard government at the time. Let those on the other side of the House be under no misapprehension: Work Choices was the nail in the coffin of the Howard government. In defeating the Howard government on this issue, we killed off the Work Choices legislation. What was Work Choices all about? Let me remind members very quickly. It stripped away entitlements for 75 per cent of the workers in this state overnight. They had their entitlements stripped to five bare minimum conditions. They were shoved on to individual contracts. You had people in very small companies, who had the laws that you are saying you want to maintain and protect, having their entitlements stripped away from them overnight, and they were put under individual contracts with five minimum conditions. They had removal of unfair dismissal rights taken away overnight. They had them one day, and the next day they were taken away. The government stripped away the award conditions for ordinary working families. Let me tell you: I did not hear very much opposition coming from those on the opposite side of the House. In fact, you were there at the sidelines, cheering the Howard government on, yet today you are in here as hypocritical as ever trying to defend— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! I would ask the member to direct her comments through the chair. Ms GRACE: The opposition members are in here today trying to defend the metamorphosis they have all of a sudden gone through. They were moths yesterday; today they are butterflies. All of a sudden they are all standing up for the worker. Let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker: they did not fool the workers at the last election and they will not fool them today. What opposition members are going on about today demonstrates their lack of knowledge of industrial relations to the point of embarrassment. I listened to the words of the member for Kawana and the member for Gaven, and their lack of knowledge of industrial relations matters was almost embarrassingly unbelievable. We had the member for Southern Downs saying that he was not going to support the legislation because somehow it is stripping away the rights of workers—all of a sudden, he is a bastion for the rights of workers—and then in the same breath we had members on his side bemoaning the fact that we are giving the laws over to the federal legislation because it is going to increase their entitlements. Talk about a contradiction of terms from the same side of the House. The hypocrisy is absolutely breathtaking. But we put up the good fight in this state. It was a hostile progress initiated by a Liberal government. A Liberal-National government initiated this hostile takeover, and this government, together with the union movement, fought it up to the High Court. Unfortunately, the High Court ruled and they were able to use the corporations power in this way. The only correct course to take when there is only 25 per cent left in the state system—and business also supports this—is to amalgamate it into the federal system, but you do not do it willy-nilly. You do it with all of the protections in the legislation to ensure that those workers go through a transition and their entitlements are protected. I can say that their entitlements are enshrined in this bill. If opposition members read it, they would see that they are enshrined in this bill. We have heard the carping and the carry-on from that side of the House about how workers are going to miss out. Like I said, they all went through a metamorphosis. They are all the workers’ defenders all of a sudden. Your silence was deafening during Work Choices. You have no credibility on this matter. You have absolutely no knowledge on this matter, and your comments and your debating are pathetic. 11 Nov 2009 Motion 3305

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! Member for Brisbane Central, please direct your comments through the chair. Ms GRACE: Thank you for your guidance on this matter, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is very difficult when you hear such utter nonsense being uttered from the other side of the House. It is very difficult to keep one’s cool when all one’s life one fights for the rights of workers and those on the other side brought in the worst national IR laws this country has ever seen, and yet they are standing up here today and degrading what we are doing under this bill. Not only are they out of touch with workers; they are out of touch with those whom they are supposed to represent. They are supposed to represent the business community. They are completely out of touch, because we know that even business is saying, ‘It becomes very confusing when one lot is covered under federal legislation and one lot is covered under state legislation.’ Debate, on motion of Ms Grace, adjourned.

MOTION

Rural and Regional Hospitals, Funding Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (5.30 pm): I move— That this House: Calls upon the government to commit to additional funding of rural and regional hospitals to alleviate the burden on families currently forced to travel to attend medical services at centralised health hubs. As we all know, the hub system of supplying medical services operates like a wheel, with the hub being in the major population centres and outlying small hospitals and communities being at the end of the spokes. Those in rural and regional areas seeking treatment get directed to the hub, or into the cities. There have been times when I have been told by doctors and specialists in city areas that referrals were not necessarily needed. Most people in the cities would not understand what regional and rural patients endure under the current system, and nor would they understand the greater cost incurred by rural and regional patients, be it monetary or time. For city people, the specialist or hospital is relatively close. For many rural and regional patients, however, being told you are being referred to a specialist is the start of a logistical nightmare. I am constantly informed by governments that it is simply not cost effective to supply full medical services to rural areas, but we are not asking for full services. That was never our intent. What we do ask for is consideration of the impost that this system has on rural and regional patients, and perhaps to offer suggestions as to how the system might operate in a much more rural and regional friendly manner. Firstly, I would like to outline the current system’s effect on rural and regional patients seeking medical services, be that by referral from their local GP for a consultation with a specialist or through hospitalisation for minor or major reasons. If you are in the public system you can wait literally years to get an appointment to see a specialist. If you do get an appointment, you then have to wait to see how long it will take to have an operation. It could take a long time. It is anybody’s guess. Public patients are often elderly and are in the lower socioeconomic section of our rural communities. Many people in cities say—and I have heard it said in this House also—‘You choose to live in the country so put up with it.’ For some people in the country that is very true, but for many the high cost of property and rent in the cities force them to move to less costly areas in the country. People will live where they can afford to live. It is as simple as that. That, however, should not mean they should be denied medical services, nor should it mean that access to medical services should be a nightmare. Let us go through the process. Let us imagine you live in a small town of Proston or Blackbutt. The nearest hospital is in Kingaroy, which is three-quarters of an hour or more away. So you have a long trip to even get there. When you get there, you can wait for a considerable amount of time. There are no specialists there except on intermittent occasions, but they will invariably not be there on the day that you arrive. You will seek help and there will be a referral. If you are not used to the health system, you do not necessarily know that you need a PTS form. That is a whole other drama for rural people. If you are elderly, you often dread the trip into Brisbane. You do not know it. You are not familiar with the roads. The location of the hospital or the specialist rooms is a total mystery. More often than not, the trip alone to get to your service becomes a nightmare. For some luckier persons in rural areas, they may be lucky enough to get a volunteer who will drive them and contribute to the cost of the fuel. There is no transport that coincides with the appointment that will be made for you. There are no buses that go there. If you cannot get a volunteer to take you and you have no family member to take you, you will have to stay overnight and so it becomes a very costly exercise. If you get a volunteer, it will cost you anywhere between $40 and $80 for the round trip. So you can see it is a major nightmare. 3306 Motion 11 Nov 2009

If you are lucky enough that your partner drives and you are elderly, you will probably start off at four in the morning to avoid the traffic. You will try to be at your destination before the roads are too congested. So it becomes a major ordeal. If you are not stressed before you got there and your medical condition is stable, you will probably be a lot worse by the time you do. Many people do stay overnight. Although I am told that referrals are made to try to get people in at an appropriate time so they do not have to leave at sparrow’s or daybreak, you will probably get an appointment some time during the day but not necessarily when it is convenient. I have often heard of ambulances dropping off patients to hospitals and people have missed their appointment, and they have to return another day. They do not always connect and that is a reality. The appointment which you may have waited three to six months for or longer has been missed. It has been a waste of time. You have wasted a whole day and you have to start the whole process all over again. In Kingaroy we have equipment that sits relatively idle. It is good equipment that sits idle because we do not have a doctor able to supervise the testing processes. I hear this from pilots who are sent to Brisbane or to the coast to centres where they can undergo the tests that they require just to keep their pilots licence. Why is this machinery idle? Why do we not have people there to ensure that the load is lightened in the cities but the equipment can be utilised in the country? I know patients who will not go to the city. They decline treatment for cancer and other things because it is all too hard. They are mostly male pensioners who refuse to go to the city because they cannot get transport, they will not drive and to get their $40 to $80 back from the government for the distance travelled is all too hard. We need mental health services in rural and regional areas that are reliable. We get specialists who come once every six weeks. If the specialist does not make it that day because he or she is sick— and I do not hold that against them—the patients become overly stressed, their conditions worsen and it becomes another major nightmare for them. We do not have enough doctors in the Kingaroy area to service our community. Private doctors are closing their books, as I keep telling everybody in this House, and redirecting patients to other towns. People who come to our town find it extremely stressful because it is the only place they can afford to live which is a relatively reasonable sized town, but when they get there they find they have to go to other towns 30 minutes to three-quarters of an hour away to get a doctor to look after them. My electorate needs a hospital suitable to attract regular visits from specialists and which has the facilities there. I cannot believe that the rescue helicopter that comes in multiple times a night is cheaper than putting on an extra doctor or extra services in our town. Our dental services remain some of the worst in the state, if not the country. It is incredible to see people come to talk to you about the fact that their teeth are falling out of their gums because they cannot get treatment. Is it not better to treat something before it becomes a major concern to the person involved and a major cost to the system than to have people not able to eat because their teeth are literally falling out—I see that situation regularly—and they have to be declared emergencies? Why do people have to wait until they become emergencies and possibly have to go to the extent of getting a full dental plate before anything is done? Surely it is better to treat people in the early stages when an ulcer is small, before it eats away a person’s leg. It is my desire to improve health services in rural and regional areas, and I hope the other Independents and the member for Caloundra will outline how this can be done. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (5.40 pm): I second the motion. At the outset I want to thank the Minister for Health for his planned visit to my electorate later this month. I certainly look forward to him looking at the hospital and meeting some of my constituents who have a very genuine concern about the health service and who are very gracious in the way that they convey that information. We do live in a diverse state. I acknowledge that, and I also acknowledge that the health department has now adopted this hub-and-spoke model that is more recently spoken about. However, people in rural and regional Queensland have a reasonable expectation of services commensurate with their population and their projected population growth. Of all of the issues that arise in my electorate, health is one that is regularly discussed and regularly complained about. The complaints are not about the staff at the hospital or the doctors who work there. They do a brilliant job, but they do it under a lot of pressure and with diminishing resources. As a result, they find themselves frustrated at their inability at times to provide the level of service that they as practitioners and clinicians want to provide. The industry in the electorate of Gladstone is heavy industry in the main which is of a diverse nature, and some of it has quite high-risk elements in the work type. Public transport to Rockhampton is nonexistent unless you want to stay overnight. I know that there has been discussion about providing public transport for those who have to go to Rockhampton, but that does not diminish the expectation of people in my community to be able to go to the Gladstone Base Hospital to access the services, within reason, that they should be able to access in a community such as Gladstone. 11 Nov 2009 Motion 3307

There has been a history of late of service reduction by stealth, and I will give an example. Let us say that a specialist such as a surgeon leaves, because that is happening at the moment, and he has provided a range of surgical procedures to residents of the Gladstone regional area. The position is readvertised but is readvertised with a reduced scope of work, so obviously the person who applies for that position will have perhaps diminished skill or experience. The good surgeons who would have normally applied look at the scope of work that the hospital will be able to provide and say, ‘I won’t go there because my skills base will diminish and my future is impeded as far as my surgical work is concerned.’ The question is asked: will a surgeon be reappointed? The answer is yes, but the detail is what reveals a diminution of services. One issue that will be raised when the minister visits the Gladstone region relates to oncology services. A wide range of oncology services was available, and I am not talking about specialist, complicated oncology services but about general application of chemo in the local region for the local community. I am regularly getting feedback to say that those services are reducing and more and more people are being referred to Rockhampton. I have already referred to surgical procedures. With regard to oral health, a new oral health facility has been promised and funded for two or three budgets but the ground has not yet been turned, and it needs to be built. Alternate birthing facilities have been requested, as has regular access to eye specialists to ENT to fracture clinics. So many people who have broken arms and legs who in the past believed—and I am happy to be corrected—that those fractures could be set in Gladstone are now referred to Rocky or Brisbane. There is a mounting level of frustration within the community about these health facilities in a growing centre such as Gladstone, and Gladstone is not diminishing. Industry has been promised and projected for the Gladstone region, and I mean significant industry. The LNG industry itself will create 18,000 jobs in the supply chain, yet this is a community that sees its services, particularly health services, diminishing. This motion calls for an additional commitment for funding to rural and regional hospitals to alleviate the burden on families forced to travel. People in my community say that as a region we are growing and we contribute significantly to the state’s financial stability, and they want to see these services re-established and enhanced. Mr WATT (Everton—ALP) (5.46 pm): I am taking the unusual step for a government member in a 5.30 debate of actually speaking in support of the motion. All government speakers will be speaking in support of the motion, and we will be voting that way. Mr Wellington: Hear, hear! Mr SPEAKER: It is good that we are all in furious agreement. Mr WATT: Perhaps I should sit down right away then. I know that the member for Ashgrove is keenly awaiting the rest of my speech, so I suppose I should continue for her benefit if no-one else’s. My opening comment is one that I made at a recent function I attended on behalf of the Deputy Premier—a dinner to recognise the winners of the Queensland Rural Health Scholarship Scheme, which provides a scholarship to university students who are prepared, at the completion of their training, to spend time working in rural areas of Queensland. I made the comment at that function that, in my view, rural and remote Queenslanders have exactly the same right to a high-quality health system as those of us who live in the south-east corner. That of course does not necessarily mean that exactly the same kind of service can be provided in a remote location as can be provided in the middle of an urban centre. We have to be a little bit flexible about where and how the service is provided, but there is no doubt that those Queenslanders have the same right to a high-quality medical service as anyone else does. As I mentioned, I had the pleasure of representing the Deputy Premier at that dinner recently and I heard a lot of interesting stories from doctors who had spent time working in remote areas. I heard stories about having to deliver babies for the very first time with the only instruction being provided over the telephone by another doctor in a city location. That gave me some insight into the very different circumstances that remote Queenslanders face in receiving health services. However, I am pleased to say that, despite the challenges of providing health services in remote areas, the Bligh government is delivering a better and more modern health system for all of Queensland. We are building hospital infrastructure and delivering more beds in regional Queensland, in our regional hospitals and smaller hospitals as well. The Bligh government is investing in our regional health services in the regional centres and our smaller services where rural Queenslanders live. We are delivering these services directly into our regional centres and smaller rural communities, and we are using high-tech modern health innovations like telehealth to deliver specialist services from larger centres. The Bligh government is building, rebuilding or upgrading 46 public hospitals across the state, many of which are in major provincial cities and many of which are in smaller rural settings. Given that other government members are planning to speak throughout this debate about the major hospital redevelopments that are occurring in their areas, I will leave them to speak about those major hospital redevelopments but want to give a couple of examples of some of the new building programs that are going on in hospitals in smaller rural settings around Queensland. For instance, our 3308 Motion 11 Nov 2009

$41.4 million Ingham Hospital redevelopment was officially opened on 6 July 2009. It has delivered new operating theatres, an inpatient ward, a new emergency department, a pharmacy, community health and dental services to the residents of Ingham and its surrounds. Further works are continuing on site and will reach completion in early 2010. In the area of maternity services, Charleville Hospital, along with a couple of other regional hospitals, has just received $1 million to expand the maternity services that it provides. During 2009 we have opened more newborn and family drop-in services in Mackay, Hervey Bay and Mount Isa and clinics in Bundaberg, Caboolture, Kingaroy, Longreach, Proserpine and Emerald will commence in the next few months. I think they are good examples of where the Bligh government is rising to the challenge of delivering quality health services to people throughout the state. Innisfail Hospital has increased doctor numbers from six to eight in recent years. Mr Pitt: Hear, hear! Mr WATT: I know the member for Mulgrave is a keen supporter of that hospital. On average, that hospital has hired an extra nurse each year. Kingaroy Hospital has 85 more clinical staff than it did just five years ago, including an additional seven doctors. These regional hospitals are at the front line of health services for rural and regional Queenslanders. There have already been some comments made about the Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme that exists in Queensland. We recognise that it is not necessarily perfect and that there is always room for improvement, but I would like to remind the House that Queensland’s minimum distance eligibility threshold is the most generous of any scheme in Australia. Last year, expenditure on this program was over $34 million. We know that we can do more to support patients who need to travel to access health services. That is why in July 2007, in recognition of higher petrol prices, we increased the patient travel mileage subsidy from 10c to 15c per kilometre. The Bligh government is serious about health services in the bush. Mrs KIERNAN (Mount Isa—ALP) (5.51 pm): I, too, rise to speak in support of this motion. Obviously, my interest is certainly getting more funding and more services to my part of the world, as far away as it is. I am really pleased that the Bligh government is delivering a better, more modern health system—and not just for my area but for all of Queensland, and regional Queensland particularly. Our modern health system has more health professionals than ever before. We are building more hospitals, adding more beds and we are innovating health service delivery to treat more patients sooner. Through delivering on those three priorities, we are cutting waiting times and providing a better quality of care, particularly in regional Queensland. Queensland already has one of the shortest elective surgery wait times in Australia. Our emergency wait times have improved from sixth to third. We have more beds and more staff, but we certainly can do better. Since June 2005, the Bligh government has hired an additional 10,000 clinical staff state-wide. Over the next three years, we will hire a further 3,000 and I encourage doctors and nurses particularly to experience practising out in the more remote parts of our state. At the Mount Isa Hospital alone, we have seen an increase of 50 more clinical staff. As mentioned by the member for Everton, we are upgrading hospitals and rebuilding hospitals right across the state, including at Mount Isa. We have added many beds and wards across Queensland. We have now, in 2009, 1,700 extra beds. With respect to rebuilding and redeveloping hospitals, in the north-west alone I am delighted that Mount Isa Hospital has received $65 million in funding. Some people may suggest that the money that is going into the redevelopment of the hospital is not good enough, but I can tell members that every cent will go towards the hospital redevelopment and that there will be a wonderful expansion of that hospital, with emergency department and treatment bays being increased from 12 to 27, more oral and mental health services and a new outpatients department. I have to say that I am a great advocate of the Mount Isa Hospital and I cannot praise more highly the work that is done in the emergency area of the hospital—indeed right across the hospital. Far too often we hear a lot of negativity about things that go wrong. I think sometimes we are influenced by that and get swept away believing that our world is just so bad. But I am so privileged to know of the incredible work that our doctors and nurses do in the emergency area of the Mount Isa Hospital and I know of the many lives that have been saved by their fantastic work. The Cloncurry Hospital will see seven aged-care beds at a cost of $6.5 million. That is certainly going to keep our seniors in that community at home where they want to be. Ms Croft: Hear, hear! Mrs KIERNAN: I take that interjection; absolutely. We talk about wanting services delivered right at home. The best neonatal unit outside of the south-east corner is in Townsville. When I have to sit with parents whose babies have to go to Townsville, I know that those premmie babies are getting the best care. That neonatal unit is saving lives. 11 Nov 2009 Motion 3309

Today, telemedicine in the bush in my area is the best bar none. There is an IC unit where doctors and nurses can bring on board the best specialists around the world if they need them for the care of patients. We need to get smarter in our technology. I think that more can be done. I am a great advocate for increasing patient travel, particularly for people in my part of the world who have to travel for many hours to see specialists. We understand that. I will keep working on that. Also, nurse practitioners are absolutely the best innovation ever. (Time expired) Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (5.56 pm): I rise to speak in support of this very important motion, moved by my parliamentary colleague the Independent member for Nanango and seconded by my colleague the Independent member for Gladstone. It is wonderful to see the government supporting the motion—supporting the call, supporting Queenslanders’ calls for the government to commit to additional funding of rural and regional hospitals to alleviate the burden on families who are currently forced to travel to attend medical services at centralised health hubs. We all know of cases where Queenslanders have had to raise their health needs with the minister’s office because health bureaucrats, for whatever reason, were not able to help them. I certainly know of one recent case where a grandparent carer was calling for help from health bureaucrats for treatment for their granddaughter who was suicidal and who had a history of self-mutilation. For whatever reason, the health bureaucrats could not hear the calls for help but, fortunately, our health minister did. He listened and within a short period of time his office had organised for that granddaughter to be transported to Brisbane, where she received treatment. We should not have to take our calls for treatment to our health minister. Our constituents should not have to ring their local member and they should not have to ring the Minister for Health and say, ‘Please help us’ because health bureaucrats, for whatever reason, are not able to hear our calls for help. We see in this debate on this motion an acknowledgement that at the moment our health system is under significant pressure and strain. I believe that at the moment the best way we have of alleviating that strain is by trying to allocate more resources to respond to those calls for help. As we speak—in November 2009—senior bureaucrats in all of our state government departments are working, perhaps now at six o’clock in the evening, on submissions to take the to mid-term budget review committee. Earlier today I was thinking, ‘Yes, that is perhaps where we should leave it—to try to convince some ministers to review their submissions to the mid-term budget review committee.’ But after hearing the decision of our federal minister, Peter Garrett, to stop the Traveston Dam and the Premier’s call to property owners who had sold their land to the government to contact the government as it is prepared to sell it back to them, I wonder whether we need to take it a step further and say to the Treasurer and Premier, ‘Instead of doing a mid-term budget review, perhaps, Treasurer, you could consider bringing in another budget,’ because there are certain and significant budget ramifications as a result of this support from the government for this motion and also the decision of the federal government to stop the Traveston Dam. The Traveston Dam was budgeted for in the budget papers that the Treasurer released earlier in June. It was referred to as the $1.592 billion Traveston Crossing Dam. That has now been stopped and the Premier has invited 494 former property owners to contact the state government if they are interested in purchasing back their properties. Can I just say, on behalf of my constituents in the upper part of the Mary River and all the people in the valley, thank you, Premier, for not taking this matter to the High Court. Thank you for not persisting with fighting this decision. Thank you for acting so promptly in allowing the former property owners to approach the government and buy back their properties. I believe the fact that this land will come back into production will significantly help our Treasurer bring significant income back into state coffers. After all, this is acknowledged as very good and very productive, valuable farming land. I believe in the near future we will see a significant return to this land being very productive farming land. I believe we will also see an opportunity for the government to reconsider its reluctance to bring forward the Sunshine Coast regional hospital. Recently we saw a significant rally on the Sunshine Coast of the communities—mums, dads, children and everyone—saying, ‘We really want the government to listen to our calls to bring forward this hospital’, and not put it back to the time frame currently proposed in the budget. Again, with the government support for our motion, I urge the Treasurer to perhaps not just consider the mid-term budget review but to consider bringing in another budget so that he can put the Sunshine Coast regional hospital back on track. Then he could look at other savings that would be open to him as a result of Mr Garrett’s decision. Another saving that I would like to raise for the benefit of the Treasurer and the government to consider is the proposed continuation of the northern interconnector pipeline. In the budget papers released in June the Treasurer referred to it as a $211 million project linking Eudlo to Lake Macdonald in the former Noosa shire. The reality is that we do not need to see this pipeline built to the size proposed. If it needs to be built it could certainly be built with a smaller diameter. (Time expired) 3310 Motion 11 Nov 2009

Ms JOHNSTONE (Townsville—ALP) (6.01 pm): There is no doubt that health is one of the most important priorities that families face in regional Queensland. I support the motion moved by the member for Nanango. We in the regional areas certainly do face many changes and many people have important reasons to access quality health care. The member for Mount Isa has already spoken a bit about some of the things that I want to touch on as well. We have a modern healthcare system in Queensland and we are working hard to improve on that. In Townsville, as a major regional centre, we want to work hard at having our James Cook University medical school adjacent to the hospital and are working hard to have quality regional medical staff practising in our hospital, coming through our medical school and practising in our health services in Townsville and other parts of the region. Since 2005 Townsville alone has had an increase in doctor numbers of some 53 per cent. That is an extra 146 doctors. We have hired an additional 513 nurses since 2005, which is more than 100 extra nurses every year. The Bligh government is building and rebuilding or upgrading some 46 hospitals across the state, and Townsville is one of the major redevelopments that is occurring. We are adding more beds across the whole of Queensland. By 2015-16 Queensland public hospitals will have more than 1,700 extra beds than we have currently. That is over and above the more than 900 new beds we have delivered since 2006. In Townsville alone the first stage of our $368 million redevelopment will deliver 100 new beds, an expanded neonatal intensive care unit and an expanded emergency department. I want to talk a little bit about the quality of care that our babies get in Townsville in our neonatal intensive care unit. We have some of the best doctors and nurses in the world taking care of our sick children—nurses like Michelle Gunn—who are not only dedicated to their job but are highly professional, always undertaking professional development and care for our most precious assets. I would not want my babies to be anywhere else. I am pleased to have a service of this nature in North Queensland so that people from smaller centres can have their babies cared for in the north. Not only is this $368 million expansion delivering better health services for Townsville and North Queensland, but it is also delivering on the all-important jobs. We know how important jobs are in the current climate. If the Queensland government was not investing in our infrastructure program in Townsville nothing would be happening. I can tell honourable members that for a fact. The Townsville Hospital’s operating budget has nearly doubled since 2005 from $198 million to $391 million. That is a staggering 95 per cent increase in fewer than five years. We are modernising the Queensland health system. In doing this, the Bligh government is using innovation to deliver services to more regional Queenslanders. One example of this innovation is through the Surgery Connect program, which is delivering elective surgery to public patients through excess capacity in the private system. In the recent The state of our public hospitals report we have rated the shortest elective surgery waiting times in the country. A record number of Queenslanders are receiving treatment. Last year some 122,000 elective surgeries were performed. That is 10,000 more than were performed in 2005. Our Surgery Connect program has been a vital part of getting this far. Under the program, Queensland Health pays for public patients to have their operation done through extra sessions in public hospitals or where there is spare surgical capacity in the private system. Since the Surgery Connect program began in November 2007, it has treated more than 12,500 public patients. That is why the Bligh government has made a commitment to make this flagship program a permanent feature of our health system. We will invest $90 million in Surgery Connect over the next three years to deliver an additional 20,000 operations of which 3,300 will be on children. Thanks to this commitment, this financial year alone 7,000 extra Queenslanders will receive elective surgery sooner. This financial year rural and regional Queenslanders will continue to benefit by being able to have their surgery performed closer to home. That includes 200 patients in Townsville this year and an additional 3,500 patients in metropolitan Brisbane, many of whom may be rural and regional Queenslanders travelling to Brisbane for specialist treatment. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—LNP) (6.06 pm): It is good to see that the House does support the motion before it tonight. Let us look at some of the situations in remote and regional Queensland. Winton Hospital has no theatre at the moment. It had one. It has had no permanent doctor for a period of 12 months. It is said that a new hospital is being built, but that new hospital will not have piped oxygen; it will still use bottled oxygen. Accreditation standards under ACHS require piped oxygen. The question becomes: will Winton Hospital become a nursing home? Will it be downgraded from a hospital to a nursing home? Hughenden Hospital has a theatre, but it has been decommissioned. I was advised that three months prior to that decommissioning an enormous sum of money by way of equipment was placed into that theatre and it has now been decommissioned. Charters Towers has a wonderful old hospital, but it is an old hospital. When I was at that hospital there was certainly talk about needing to move that hospital down near Eventide Nursing Home. Eventide itself does not provide the secure, high-care dementia ward so needed not just for Charters Towers but right across that region. 11 Nov 2009 Motion 3311

What does that mean to people in Hughenden, to people in Winton and to people in other parts of this state such as Longreach, Warwick et cetera? It means that people have to travel hundreds of kilometres for simple procedures not once, not twice, not three times, but over and over again. What do they receive? They receive 15c a kilometre and $33 per night. Those figures have been stagnant for around 10 to 15 years, but the incredible scenario is that the accommodation charges have risen significantly and the cost of petrol has also risen significantly—well in excess of any increase in subsidy. People have to pay for that. People have to pay $1.33 a litre for petrol and they get 15c a kilometre back. That is an appalling statement to have to make. But what is the impact? The impact is manyfold. Because patients have to travel hundreds of kilometres, families are separated, not just for days but sometimes for weeks at a time. Family run businesses are disrupted. Children do not have contact with one of their parents. The person who suffers the illness has to reside in an area where they do not have contact with their family or their community for weeks at a time. Equally, funnelling those people into places such as Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Brisbane and the Gold Coast means that in those areas waiting lists blow out. They are pushed down into a funnel system and they are overcrowding the hospital system. Let us look at one statistic: according to a Queensland Health document, in March 2007, 143,000 people were waiting to get on the waiting list; in March 2009 that figure had grown to 183,000. Let us look at the example of cancer. In 2009 the Queensland Cancer Registry published a document entitled Cancer in Queensland, Incidence and Mortality—1982 to 2006, which showed that the five-year survival rate of cancer is 60 per cent in Far North Queensland and 68 per cent in South-East Queensland. The difference exists because the facilities are down here. The stress of travelling hundreds of kilometres, day in and day out, tells upon a cancer patient and it affects people recovering from cancer. The scenario is this: instead of making a commitment to put services back into the bush, the government has taken services from the bush. We need local hospital boards made up of local people with local knowledge giving local solutions. The Traveston Dam money can now go into the Sunshine Coast University Hospital. (Time expired) Mr O’BRIEN (Cook—ALP) (6.11 pm): The Bligh government is delivering a better and more modern health system for all of Queensland, and regional Queensland is no exception. My electorate of Cook is home to the most remote people in Queensland. The logistics of getting patients to health centres is much more complicated in the Far North than in other areas of Queensland, especially in the wet season. The Cook electorate has 30 separate and distinct communities spread over an area the size of Victoria. The six hospitals are located at Mossman, Mareeba, Cooktown, Weipa, Bamaga and Thursday Island, and they support 26 primary healthcare centres. The Atherton Hospital also treats constituents from my electorate, and a couple of primary healthcare centres just over the border, in Dalrymple and Mount Isa, also provide medical services to my constituents. The large regional hospital is at Cairns. Some people may need to go to Townsville and sometimes even to Brisbane for care. If I had enough time tonight I would talk about each and every one of those hospitals and primary healthcare centres and advise the House of either capital upgrades that have been completed in recent years or how services have been improved in particular centres. I could do that for every single one. On 30 April this year I officially opened a new $45 million hospital at Weipa on the western Cape York Peninsula. It is a magnificent facility that offers a wide range of specialist services and assists in taking the pressure off larger hospitals like Cairns, where people would otherwise have to be flown for treatment. Unfortunately, it cannot offer all the services that the community wants. I acknowledge that. As in many rural communities, the women of my electorate have a great desire to have their babies in their own communities. This is true in Weipa, Cooktown and even in Mossman, which is only 80 kilometres from the Cairns Base Hospital. In Weipa, facilities have been put in place for that to happen. I think all members of the House are aware that in Australia there is a shortage of obstetricians and anaesthetists, but in the future it may be possible to get the necessary number of specialists with the right mix. Alternatively, the facilities could be used to deliver a midwife based model of maternity care. In other parts of my electorate the government is spending incredible amounts of money to improve facilities and increase services. Recently we opened the Cooktown renal dialysis unit, costing $3 million. Dialysis patients will be able to move back to their community for treatment, taking the pressure off hospitals such as Cairns. In Mossman the $2 million renal dialysis unit that opened in February means patients do not have to travel over 150 kilometres to Atherton three times a week for treatment. The Torres Strait Islands are the most isolated and remote places in the state. The government is investing considerable funds to improve services, which will take pressure off some of the regional hospitals such as at Cairns. Last year a new primary healthcare clinic was opened at Warraber at a cost of $4.8 million and another was opened on Darnley Island, at a cost of $5.7 million. The centre on Darnley Island was more expensive because it included provision for a doctor’s residence. That centre will service the eastern islands of the Torres Strait. But that is not all. Work will soon commence on a $5.7 million new primary healthcare centre at Saibai Island, at the most northern point of Queensland just a few kilometres from the Papua New Guinea mainland. 3312 Motion 11 Nov 2009

There is one more project that I would like to mention, although, as I said, the projects I am talking about do not form an exhaustive list. Work has started on a $40 million chronic disease centre on Thursday Island. I will put this project in some perspective. Currently dozens of people from the Torres Strait must live in Cairns to receive the renal dialysis that they need to survive. When we open the chronic disease centre on Thursday Island, a large number of those people will be able to come home to their families and their support networks. In addition to those projects, we have more doctors, more nurses, more Indigenous health workers, more allied health workers, more visiting health specialists and more project teams than at any other time in the 150-year history of this state. People in this state need to remember that in 1989, when we took over from that mob over there, we took over cockroach ridden, dingy, small and disgusting healthcare centres, if there was a healthcare centre at all. Over the course of the past 20 years we have systematically rebuilt the health system in this state and put in place modern facilities. We are investing in 21st century technology such as Queensland Telehealth, which the Deputy Premier spoke about in the parliament this week. It is an important tool in a state as large as Queensland. It reduces the need for patients to travel and allows for increased access to specialised consultation. Of course, I would like to see an increase in the patient travel subsidy, but I understand that there has to be a balance between doing that and building hospital facilities in remote areas such as my electorate. We have to find the balance. In Queensland we are finding that balance, particularly in my electorate. We are providing additional services from the most remote hospitals in this state. I commend my government for what it is doing. Mr FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (6.16 pm): Tonight I rise to proudly participate in this debate on behalf of the Independents and to stick up for regional Queensland. Every day we sit in this chamber and listen to childish nonsense such as ‘I don’t know why the government/opposition hates’ teachers, doctors, nurses, or whoever else has the misfortune to be caught in the crossfire of these childish and banal debates. As members of this House we do ourselves no credit, because the truth is that all members of this parliament have a deep and abiding concern for all members of the public and public services. We all wish that all services could be fully funded if money was no object, but it is. Tonight, the Independents wish to thank the government for agreeing with this motion because it is a very important motion. I am sure that some people who live in capital cities have precious little understanding of the pressures that people in regional centres face in terms of travelling for treatment. Today in conversation with the health minister I expressed my concerns about our wonderful Maryborough Base Hospital and the fact that we are very keen to see that hospital add extra capacity to our region. I believe that the minister fully understood the significance of those concerns. I welcome his commitment today to a full clinical review of Maryborough, Hervey Bay and Bundaberg hospitals. Mr Lucas: Maryborough and Hervey Bay. Mr FOLEY: Maryborough and Hervey Bay. He also agreed to receive a delegation of some of the key players in the Maryborough area which I am organising. This is about really seeing a good outcome for Queenslanders. It is not about stupid petty politics and batting back and forth with comments about what he said or what she said. We are all tired of that. We need to move beyond that to achieve some meaningful outcomes for the people of Queensland. Empirical evidence is clear that the devolution of the medical services in regional Queensland of course is in direct proportion to an ever shrinking budget. Now that St Pete, the patron saint of the environment, has knocked back Traveston Dam, perhaps some of that budgeted amount could be put into health services in regional Queensland. I want to talk about the Maryborough Hospital and the fact that we are at the crossroads geographically. People have tried to say that by talking Maryborough Hospital up I am talking Hervey Bay Hospital down, which of course is blatant and absolute nonsense. I have gone on the record many, many times in this House saying that Hervey Bay has a rapidly expanding population and it desperately needs hospital services. I know full well because my own wife, who is a medical laboratory scientist, has to travel to Hervey Bay to work in her field of pathology because the workload is so great there. Even though she could work in the Maryborough lab, she chooses to work in Hervey Bay to help out the folks in Hervey Bay. It is not about one hospital versus the other. It is a matter of saying that Hervey Bay Hospital is absolutely straining at the seams. The nurses and doctors are working under very torturous conditions there and Maryborough Hospital wants to help in offering some of that spare capacity. There are so many things that could be done in our region. We have a rapidly growing campus of the University of Southern Queensland which trains nurses who go into the workforce. Those nurses are now allied health professionals, such as pathology scientists, and they could operate out of Maryborough as a training hospital as well. There is capacity. The Foley family has contributed six babies—industrial quantities of children—all born at the Maryborough Hospital. I know that they would dearly love for there to be a reopening of our birthing services. If we look at the whole ballpark, I believe that Maryborough is at the crossroads geographically as well as having an industrial base. By the way, when we analyse the statistics they show that we have a very high proportion of A and E admittances compared to others. That is a discussion I have had with the minister. I look forward to him helping to improve the services in our hospital. 11 Nov 2009 Motion 3313

Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Health) (6.21 pm): Queensland is Australia’s most decentralised mainland state. There are actually people who live in this state in large quantities outside the south-east corner. This is in stark contrast to other states in Australia and it is part of our unique and wonderful nature as a state. But it also provides certain responsibilities and certain burdens on us. They are great burdens in the sense that it is wonderful to have a decentralised state but it means that it is often difficult and challenging to do everything that we want to do. Health is our largest single budget item—26.8 per cent of the budget. If we add education, over 50 per cent of the budget is spent on those two areas. The health budget is not just about the capital that we are investing. Our capital expenditure is $6 billion in places like Cairns, Mount Isa, Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton Bundaberg, Toowoomba and then the south-east corner. I was in Townsville recently opening a $9 million palliative care centre which we will then operate. Each year it will cost $5.6 million in recurrent expenditure to do that. This year the recurrent health budget is $9 billion. I take issue with the member for Maryborough. It is not an ever shrinking budget; it is an inexorably ever increasing budget. It was $5.75 billion in 2005; this year it is $9.03 billion. Against that, we can look at the federal government expenditure when it comes to health. Regrettably it has not matched the states when it comes to increased funding under John Howard. I am not going to be political tonight, but there are a couple of points that I do need to make. The federal share of health funding went from 50 per cent to 34 per cent. The federal government is not doing the heavy lifting. Australia has the third longest life expectancy on earth. Each day Queensland Health performs 50,000 occasions of client service. We are not perfect and sometimes mistakes are made. But, for the overwhelming majority of people—a massive majority of people—a wonderful job is done by caring staff from specialist doctors to the groundsmen, to the administrators, to the people who do the filing, to the doctors, the nurses and the allied health professionals. They do a wonderful job. What we need to understand is that it is about people, it is about recruiting people and it is about choices. Since 2005 Queensland Health has employed about 12,500 more doctors, nurses and allied health professionals. The entire employment of Queensland Rail is 15,500 people. Yet there are people in this House who claim—and I know they do not think like the member for Clayfield; I know what he thinks—that we should still be interested in owning a coal business from QR when the future of government expenditure is extending health services, extending what we are doing in education and extending what we are doing in disability, not owning commercial coal lines that can be owned by others. It is about investing $7.5 billion in the future of health and schools and those sorts of things, instead of investing money in QR. We need to be honest with people in these sorts of debates. We do not have civil conscription when it comes to our workforce. We cannot make people work in rural and remote Queensland. But there are things that we are doing now that actually reduce the tyranny of distance. First of all, in relation to rural GPs, there is the ability to condition some of those training places such as James Cook University to encourage people to work in those places. I think it is a shame that we are taking so many overseas graduates from countries who need them more than we do. That is why it is wonderful that we are training more and more doctors, more Queensland kids, to do medicine and to become health professionals. For example, in 2006 we had 318 interns. By 2011 we will have 644 interns. They are the people who will make a difference. The more we have, the more we can recruit to rural and remote places. The shadow minister clearly does not understand—well, I think he does understand this, but he clearly misstates this point—that there is no point having a hospital in a tiny rural community if you cannot have a doctor. Most people actually need a doctor or a nurse practitioner. It is not about whether you can have surgery performed in a tiny community. It is about having healthcare access. It is about chronic disease management in the future. It is about medical treatments. It is not about doing something we did 30 years ago in a surgery that was frankly unsafe. The issues in places like Bundaberg that are now before the courts and I cannot canvass were about people performing procedures in places where they should not have been performing them. So what are we doing? We are busily recruiting more and more specialists to regional Queensland. It is totally appropriate that places like Cairns and Mackay and Rockhampton provide strong hubs. The more we provide strong hubs and then work in with their surrounding areas the better. Of course we want to do as much as we can in other communities. Gladstone is a classic example where we want to improve the cancer treatments that can be done. But it does not help anyone if, instead of having critical mass in one place, we have half critical mass in two places because that will mean that people end up coming to Brisbane and that is not in the interests of regional Queensland. Time does not permit me to talk about teleradiology and the Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme. There are a lot of other very important things. This state’s regions and rural people matter and they matter very much to me. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Sitting suspended from 6.27 pm to 7.30 pm. 3314 Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Legislation Bill 11 Nov 2009

FAIR WORK (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) AND OTHER LEGISLATION BILL

Second Reading Resumed from p. 3305, on motion of Mr Dick— That the bill be now read a second time. Ms GRACE, continuing: I resume my comments on the Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Legislation Bill to make a couple more observations. The member for Southern Downs referred to the industrial inspectorate and being unsure about what is going to happen in the future. I want to draw his attention to a very salient point—that is, it was actually the Howard government that brokered the agreement with the Queensland government regarding the industrial inspectorate and it is the Labor government here today that is now having discussions with the current federal Labor government about reinstalling those protections that he was going to vote against today. I wanted to draw that to the honourable member’s attention. The second point is that we will not let the other side of the House forget and we will let the business sector know that what the opposition is doing here this evening is nothing more than economic vandalism. It makes economic sense to have one system that covers both the federal and the state system where we have a fair industrial relations system now in place both in the state and federally. We would not have done it under Work Choices, but this is a much better regime than what those opposite could have ever imagined. I also want to address some of the issues to do with the member for Gladstone. She spoke to a delegate. Sure, there will be some officials out there who would like everything to stay the same and would prefer to remain in the state system. We are not going to convince everybody, but my view, by and large, is that because we now have a Fair Work Act—that is, one system with comparable IR rights and entitlements—it is the right time to move into one system for the private sector and the GOCs but covered under Labor’s Fair Work Australia laws, because Work Choices is dead and buried. This step was not taken lightly, and there has been extensive consultation with Queensland employers and unions. Like I said, quite clearly there are some who like the old but there are more who will like the new. This is a good idea: one system able to achieve comparable IR rights and entitlements. I say that because there are two safeguards entrenched in this bill: the Commonwealth cannot unilaterally change the scope of the national system, and the bill includes provisions which limit changes to national IR laws which impact on Queensland’s referred jurisdiction without this government’s prior agreement. So there are a couple of very strong safeguards in this bill. If members on the other side took the time to read the bill, they would see that it cannot be unilaterally changed and changes cannot impact on these referred IR laws without this government’s prior agreement. In the past, there may have been times when the state took back the powers that it had referred, but let me tell the House—I will guarantee the House—that if Work Choices is ever introduced by a future Liberal National Party government then the next Labor state government will take those powers back. I bet you anything that we will be the first to move to protect workers’ rights, while those on the other side will remain silent—just as they did during the Work Choices debate. Decent wages and conditions, collective representation and bargaining, and unfair dismissal rights and remedies through an independent umpire are available in the Fair Work Act, providing a fairer and more balanced approach to IR than those dreadful laws that we put to bed under Work Choices. The protection for workers is built into this legislation, and I will just go to a few of them. State awards and agreements will be preserved as federal instruments maintaining state entitlements for referred employees and employers for a transitional period in the national system. Queensland’s awards will be preserved for a period of 12 months, and afterwards Queensland’s referred employers and employees who were covered by state awards will be regulated by modern federal awards. We heard some carping about the modernisation of awards, but let me tell the House that we will do that the Labor way—unlike Howard, who was doing it the Liberal-National Work Choices way. There will be a big difference between the two, I guarantee the House. Mr Springborg interjected. Ms GRACE: During the 12-month transition period, Fair Work Australia is required to consider whether any modern award should be varied or industrial orders made to continue the terms of Queensland’s state awards. Mr Messenger interjected. Ms GRACE: Honestly, the interjections from the other side of the House just add to the embarrassment. They honestly have no idea. They cannot hold their heads up because they were in this House supporting Work Choices all the way. Members opposite have no credibility, so they should not even attempt to interject because it is an embarrassment to them and their party. 11 Nov 2009 Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Legislation Bill 3315

Terms included in modern awards under this process will last for a period of five years from Queensland’s referral commencement—that is, five years from 1 January 2010. The Commonwealth bill ensures that working Queenslanders will have their hard fought for entitlements preserved under the referral. I repeat: they will be preserved under the referral. The preservation period will allow Queensland employers and employees to adapt to the new national system or allow for further consultation with Fair Work Australia on conditions seen as essential in Queensland. The national industrial relations system will provide Queensland employees with continuing decent wages and employment conditions. Workers have nothing to fear. The ability of Fair Work Australia to issue remedial take-home pay orders will ensure no employee suffers a loss of wages when moving to a modern award. There is also the retention in this bill of the superior apprentice and trainee system. I am very proud that this bill includes this because I was instrumental in Queensland’s apprenticeship and traineeship system being underpinned by orders of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. In fact, I was one of the first industrial officers to present a case to obtain these orders. They provide for, amongst other things, competency based wage progression and paid training time. Some of these conditions are unique to Queensland, and it is fantastic to see that this bill also ensures that these terms and conditions of our hardworking apprentices and trainees that are made under the QIRC will be maintained whilst we refer the powers to the Commonwealth legislation. In conclusion, this bill strikes, in my view, the balance in establishing a national IR system but respects state rights at the same time. It is in the best interests of workers and business. There are more than enough safeguards and protections for workers’ pay and conditions—more than Work Choices ever gave any worker in this country. I commend this bill to the House. Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (7.37 pm), in reply: Apart from all the noise and the bluster, the chest beating, the self-justification about how consistent they say they have been about their position on industrial relations policy and their faux arguments about putting Queensland first, there was one noise that dominated the LNP’s argument during this debate on the Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Legislation Bill. What was that noise? It was the noise of a shredder and the shredding of the opposition’s political, economic and public policy credibility on a very significant issue for our state and our nation. Why do I say that? Because, as a serious matter of public policy, the Liberal National Party—although we have seen the death of the Liberal Party with the introduction of certain private members’ bills into the parliament— Mr Wilson: Now the Country Party. Mr DICK: The Country Party. It is not just the National Party that has rolled over and destroyed the Liberal Party; they have got rid of that, too. They have gone back to the Country Party. The Country Party is seriously suggesting that we should have two systems to regulate the private sector in Queensland: one to regulate corporations and one to regulate the balance of the private sector. That is the legitimate public policy argument they are putting to the Queensland people—a two-track system, a dual system. Where was the discussion in the debate about the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, the nature of constitutional corporations and trading and financial corporations? Where was any of that? Where was the jurisprudence of the High Court that says: ‘Corporations are now regulated by the Commonwealth’? There was none of it—not one word. Of course we did not hear the words that they dare not speak their name. Mr Wilson: What’s that? Mr DICK: Work Choices. They did not come out of his mouth in this debate. Mr Springborg: Go and read Hansard. Mr DICK: There was no public policy argument. Mr Springborg: You must not have even listened. Mr DICK: Oh, he is embracing Work Choices. I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. How could I forget how closely they held Work Choices to their breast? The ideologues were seeking to crush workers in the workplace. It was a system that was stacked against workers and in favour of employers. It was the most unbalanced industrial relations system in our nation’s 100-year history. That is what they stand for. Mr Springborg: You are not Premier yet. You are not far away, but you are not Premier yet. Mr DICK: I am closer than you will ever be, brother. We will have two systems. We will have one system where corporations are regulated by the Commonwealth. We know that is the outcome of the Work Choices decision of the High Court. On our estimate, I am advised that 75 per cent to 80 per cent of the private sector in Queensland is already regulated by the Commonwealth and always will be. The world changed when the High Court handed down its Work Choices decision. 3316 Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Legislation Bill 11 Nov 2009

What are we hearing about the balance—of the 20 or 25 per cent of private sector employees in Queensland? ‘They can be regulated under another system.’ This is the party of the private sector. This is the party of the efficient economy saying, ‘We’ll have two systems. We’ll have two retailers next to each other—a corporate retailer and then another retailer run as a private business, say a partnership, or a sole trader maybe run by a trustee corporation, or two foundries or two manufacturers or two other entities in the private sector. But we will have two separate arrangements, two separate award conditions, two separate terms and conditions of employment.’ How does that help a state of 4.4 million and a nation of over 20 million? How does that create a seamless economy in a world of six billion people? How does that create an efficient economy? It is laziness. In 150 years of self-government in our state this is the best resourced opposition in 150 years, and we have the laziest opposition that has ever filled the opposition benches in this state. We did not hear anything of substance during the debate. We heard nothing of substance on a very significant issue for our state. We heard nothing about constitutional corporations. We heard nothing about the Constitution. We heard nothing about the High Court. We heard nothing about what has happened in the last few years in Queensland. They say to business, ‘Let’s have two systems’. Two agribusinesses, say two farmers next to each other. One might be a corporate entity and one might be two brothers running a business, but we’ll regulate them separately because we have vacated the field when it comes to public policy formulation on the future of our economy in this state and the future of the economy in our nation. They are bankrupt when it comes to good public policy, bankrupt when it comes to the future nature and form of the Queensland economy, bankrupt when it comes to the future prosperity of our state, bankrupt when it comes to any ideas for a progressive future for our state. So much for the launch of the LNP last year. It is one year old—the party of progressive politics. Do you remember that slogan they ran on? Mr Moorhead: Progressive conservatives. Mr DICK: It was nothing more than a sham to hide the destruction of the Liberal Party— Mr Springborg: Is this your launch for the premiership? Mr DICK: No, I take the interjection from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. What it is, I hope, is a complete demolition of someone who has sat in this parliament for 20 years pretending to want to lead this state. That is what it is. I want to be on the record clearly advocating the Labor case, because it is the duty of those of us in government, it is the duty of those of us who want to lead Queensland into a progressive future to make difficult decisions about the future of our state, the future of our state’s economy and the future for our state’s children. What do we hear from the opposition—nothing. The Liberal National Party policy tumbleweed goes on, living in the twilight zone, the eternally contradictory arguments that they put up on every bill I have heard debated in this parliament. They want it every which way. They see themselves ahead in the polls and what do they do? They do what they have done for 20 years since they lost government. They have no policy initiatives or policy ideas. This was demonstrated by the first private member’s bill brought into this House by the member for Surfers Paradise. What did he do? He photocopied something that twice before the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Southern Downs, had tried to trawl through the parliament. That is—can you believe it?—the best that the opposition leader could do. There he is on television with his smug face and nodding head but no answers to questions. What about a political threshold limit? No idea. It is the party of no ideas. Well, I stand for the party of ideas. I stand with everyone on this side of the House and we engage with very significant public policy positions, and we will engage with the serious issues facing our state and nation. What is more, we will work with the federal government to ensure that cooperative federalism develops. It will not be like what we had with Work Choices—dictated on high by John Howard, filled with the hubris and arrogance of power, taking control of the Senate and saying to the most vulnerable workers in our nation, ‘You will not have overtime, you will not have holiday pay, you will not have long service leave; you will have 2c an hour more,’ as was indicated by the member for Everton and the member for Waterford. Mr Messenger: How are the sales of Midnight Oil going over there? Mr DICK: The policy tumbleweed goes on, and that is the best they can do. The other thing we have got is the mirror of WA. Not only can they not think of their own ideas; they reflect what is happening in a Liberal National Party government in Western Australia. Let us stay outside of the system. Well, let us see what business says about that. I make this pledge through you, Mr Deputy Speaker: in every boardroom that I speak at between now and the election, I will let business know the bankrupt policy failure that the LNP represents and what they do when they come into this parliament. Every businessperson that I speak to will know what they have done. They say that we can have an inefficient economy, we can have a two-track system, we can have a dual system, and I will tell them at every board meeting this is what this alternative government wants. 11 Nov 2009 Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Legislation Bill 3317

How hard it is to say those words—alternative government—because they are not an alternative government. They are sitting there waiting for the chance. They think they fly high in the polls. They think there is no work to be done, but what would we expect—nothing more than the policy failure of 20 years. We will run this argument. We will tell the community what we are willing to do for Queensland in contradistinction to the members of the opposition. All this is is rank political opportunism to run their lines through the parliament without any substance at all. What I will do is put on the record the policy substance behind this important initiative for our state. As I said in my second reading speech, the purpose of the Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Provisions Bill 2009 is to refer to the Commonwealth the state’s industrial relations power for the private sector. This bill implements possibly the most significant cooperative reform to industrial relations since Federation, by allowing Queensland to join a national industrial relations system that protects the rights of workers. The shape of the national system and its underlying safety net means employees and employers will still have access to a fair, balanced and equitable system of industrial relations overseen by an independent umpire in Fair Work Australia. The national system will allow employers to operate under a seamless system where they know that their obligations in Queensland are no different from those in the other referring states and territories of the Commonwealth. The Queensland government is satisfied that the national system of industrial relations will be an effective system which provides fair protection to employees but also reduces the regulatory burden on employers and provides clear benefits for business and for the economy through the reduction of red tape and the increased productivity which will result from a single national system. We hear them cry about red tape all the time. They cry about overregulation of business, and here we have a demonstrated opportunity for them to do something to create a unified economy and what do they do? They walk off the field yet again, back to the showers, not interested in engaging in matters of substance. The bill refers Queensland’s industrial relations powers for the private sector to the national system but retains powers over public sector and local government employment in the state industrial relations system. The referral decision was made neither lightly nor without consultation with industry and union representatives—unlike Work Choices. The referral decision was also made only after an extensive consultation and negotiation process with representatives of the Commonwealth government—unlike Work Choices. As a result, Queensland has included provisions in the bill and successfully negotiated several important concessions from the Commonwealth to protect important current state industrial relations entitlements of Queenslanders as they transition to the national industrial relations system. Mr Wilson: Unlike Work Choices. Mr DICK: Unlike Work Choices. I take the interjection from the Minister for Education and Training. Employees transferring to the national system will have certain superior state award and agreement entitlements protected for the period of transition into the national industrial relations system. These include entitlements in relation to overtime, sick leave, annual leave, annual leave loading, public holiday penalty rates, long service leave payments, cultural leave, payments for bereavement leave and carers leave for casual employees. Training arrangements and conditions of employment for apprentices and trainees—an area in which Queensland has led the way for many years—will continue to be regulated in the national industrial relations system under provisions preserved from the relevant Queensland legislation and orders. This arrangement will continue until Fair Work Australia completes a comprehensive national review of apprenticeship and traineeship systems. It has also been agreed as part of the referral to preserve certain award wage rates arising from Queensland Industrial Relations Commission decisions affecting the community and disability services sector. Of particular importance is that the bill includes provisions which would allow Queensland to withdraw from the national system should the Commonwealth make amendments to the national system laws impacting on Queensland’s referred jurisdiction without the agreement of the Queensland government. We want to protect Queensland against the sorts of ideologues who introduced Work Choices, and they are the protections in this system. I now want to address some issues raised by members opposite. The member for Southern Downs declared that the opposition would be opposing this bill. He has asserted that Queensland should retain industrial relations powers for the private sector so that a future Queensland government can create an IR environment that gives Queensland business a competitive advantage over other states. How competitive will we be when we have the dual-track system proposed by the opposition leader? Exactly how would a future LNP government change the IR environment to create such an advantage? Well, the LNP is suggesting that, given the opportunity, it would go back to the dog-eat-dog world of Work Choices. It would cut workers’ entitlements—that makes for an advantageous competitive environment—to give businesses some advantage. It wants to set us backwards as a state, not embrace progress and the opportunity to reform for the advantage of all Queenslanders. At its heart the LNP does not stand and never has understood or stood for fairness in the workplace. It wants to go back to the past and back to Work Choices. It wants to cut workers’ entitlements. It is opposing a cooperative industrial relations system that will reduce red tape on business, increase business productivity and reduce the complexity for business and workers alike. 3318 Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Legislation Bill 11 Nov 2009

The member for Southern Downs claimed that this was an ‘unnecessary’ step. This is simply and fundamentally wrong. Since March 2006, with the introduction of Work Choices, the Commonwealth has regulated the employment relationships of constitutional corporations, an arrangement upheld by the High Court. This has created significant confusion for employers and employees regarding whether they are covered by the state or Commonwealth industrial relations system. A single national system for the private sector will reduce the regulatory confusion and complexity for business. But if we listen to the Liberal National Party, that is not something it wants. Whereas the Work Choices regime was unfair and heavily weighted in favour of employers, the new Commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009 introduces a system for the regulation of workplace relations which is fair and balanced, and the Queensland government supports this system. The new Commonwealth system revives awards as modern, relevant industrial instruments that provide a genuine safety net; sets national employment standards as statutory minimum terms of employment that apply to all employees; provides a greatly improved legislative framework for achieving equal remuneration for work of equal and comparable worth; revives the industrial tribunal’s role in settling disputes, establishing award conditions, reviewing the national employment standards and approving agreements; and setting minimum wages. Most critically, it requires good-faith collective bargaining for enterprise agreements. It requires that enterprise agreements pass the ‘better overall’ test and it eliminates individual workplace agreements. Unfair dismissal remedies are restored for small business employees. But we would not want that, listening to the LNP! Queensland now has the opportunity to cooperate with the Commonwealth to achieve a fair national system for the private sector while retaining a state system for the public sector, including all local governments and local government owned corporations. The member for Southern Downs also raised the issue of the fate of the Brisbane City Council under the referral power. I want to be very clear for the member in simple terms so he can understand that there is no change to the City of Brisbane Act and no responsibility for the Brisbane City Council to do anything, such as decorporatise. What this referral means is that the council will be caught as a non-national employer and treated accordingly. The Fair Work Act replaces much of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and provides the regulatory framework for the Fair Work regime. The aim was always to establish a national system for the entire private sector. No consideration was ever given to extending this regime to the public sector across the nation. It is appropriate for the state government to retain control over the industrial relations environment within which government policies are carried out and government services are delivered. This includes being able to regulate the ethical conduct of employees, matters of discipline, terms and conditions of employment, and how industrial action is dealt with. Retaining the Queensland Public Service in the state system allows any future government to make changes to strengthen the state conciliation and dispute-settling procedures if this is appropriate for guaranteeing minimal disruption to key public services. There are also sound arguments for having local governments remain in the state. Local governments supply services for the public good. As the third level of government within the state, it is appropriate that they fall within state industrial relations regulation. Further, all stakeholders in local government agree that jurisdictional uncertainty and fragmented jurisdiction should be resolved, and agreement was reached that the most appropriate jurisdiction for their management was the state system. The member for Southern Downs queried how the state would ensure workers’ entitlements under the referral. Queensland and other referring states have been asked to sign an intergovernmental agreement, otherwise known as an IGA, which outlines the arrangements that the parties have agreed to for the operation of the national industrial relations system for the private sector. Enshrined in the IGA are a number of fundamental industrial principles which include: (1) a strong, simple and enforceable safety net of minimum employment standards; (2) genuine rights and responsibilities to ensure fairness, choice and representation at work, including the freedom to choose whether or not to join and be represented by a union or participate in collective activities; (3) collective bargaining at the enterprise level with no provision for individual statutory agreements; (4) fair and effective remedies available through an independent umpire; and (5) protection from unfair dismissal. These fundamental workplace relations principles will be also enshrined in the Queensland legislation along with the following principles: that there should be and continue to be an independent tribunal system and an independent authority able to assist employers and employees within a national workplace relations system. Queensland was successful in negotiating governance arrangements within the IGA which require that any amendment or proposed amendment which undermines any of these principles must be approved on the basis of a two-thirds majority of referring states, territories and the Commonwealth. The states will be at the heart of the new system. We will be part of any change that occurs. In addition, Queensland has adopted a model which allows us to terminate our amendment referral on three months notice if we consider that the Commonwealth has breached the fundamental workplace relations principles. In this situation, Queensland would remain a referring state but any future Commonwealth amendments to the Fair Work Act would not be able to take effect in Queensland’s referred jurisdiction. 11 Nov 2009 Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) and Other Legislation Bill 3319

The member for Southern Downs further questioned the job security of workers after the referral. For the first 12 months of Queensland’s referral, state awards will continue to operate as federal instruments and will be subject to the national employment standards safety net and national minimum wage order on a no-detriment basis, meaning that the more beneficial entitlements in a state award or agreement will continue to apply. For the first 12 months state awards will have the same content as they do now, subject to those Commonwealth safety net arrangements just mentioned where they are more beneficial, and they will apply to the same parties as they do now. During these 12 months Fair Work Australia is required to make arrangements to transition employers and employees from the state referral transition awards to a relevant modern award by 1 January 2011. At the end of the 12-month period, employees and employers in Queensland’s referred jurisdiction will move onto the Commonwealth award system. Fair Work legislation deals with the issue of avoiding reductions in take-home pay during the transition to modern awards. The legislation expressly provides that the award modernisation process is not intended to result in a reduction in take-home pay of employees or outworkers. The legislation gives power to Fair Work Australia to make an order—a take-home pay order—where it is satisfied that an employee or class of employees has suffered a reduction in take-home pay. Take-home pay is the actual pay an employee receives, including wages, incentive based payments and additional amounts such as overtime and allowances. Once made, a take-home pay order continues to have effect so long as the modern award continues to cover the employee or employees. Amendments to the act are currently before the Commonwealth parliament to extend take-home pay provisions so that they apply to employees transitioning into the national system from referring states. Like state awards, state agreements would be preserved and continue to operate until they are replaced by a new agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009, are terminated by agreement of the parties and approved by Fair Work Australia or are terminated after the nominal expiry date of the agreement on application by one party to Fair Work Australia, subject to the termination being appropriate and not contrary to the public interest. The member for Southern Downs asked why Queensland has not moved to close the loophole raised in the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act. I would like to confirm for the member and for all the other honourable members opposite that Queensland has addressed this issue, with the Premier writing to the Prime Minister earlier this month to progress that matter. Finally, the member for Southern Downs raised the issue of regional service delivery. Queensland strongly advocated for consideration of the impact that the transfer of the currently undertaken workloads of existing staff of the Office of Fair and Safe Work Queensland will have on regional issues. As a result, the Commonwealth has factored in increased expenditure in Queensland to deliver compliance and education services. Queensland will participate fully in the processes set up under the terms of the intergovernmental agreement to continue to monitor the performance of federal responsibilities to ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act and that that regional Queensland is provided with the best services possible. In this context, the member also raised concerns about smaller operators being forced in to a ‘one-size-fits-all’ model. I would like to assure all members of the House that that is not the case. One of the main advantages of referring Queensland’s industrial relations power is that the entire private sector will operate in the federal jurisdiction. The purpose of having one industrial relations system is to decrease complexity for the parties involved—not that members would accept that if they listened to the Liberal National Party. As part of the overhaul of Australia’s industrial relations system, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission is undertaking an award modernisation process. Modern awards are required to be simple to understand, easy to apply and must promote flexible, modern work practices and efficient and productive workplaces. While the number of awards operating in the workplace relations system will be reduced through this process, the purpose of award modernisation is to simplify awards for the benefit of all parties to the award, not to provide a one-size-fits-all system that does not take into account the needs of the parties. The federal government has incorporated measures into the award modernisation process that are designed to protect the parties affected by changes to the system. For instance, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission has encouraged input from all parties, exposure drafts on each modern award have been published and all stakeholders and interested parties have been given reasonable opportunity to comment upon the drafts. This recognition of the integral role that stakeholders play in the creation of modern awards serves to ensure that parties are protected—unlike Work Choices. While the federal government has taken measures to mitigate negative impacts that this process may have, concerns have been raised by some parties, including horticultural employers. In response to concerns raised by employers in this industry, the Deputy Prime Minister and minister for workplace relations, Julia Gillard, varied her award modernisation request to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to have the full bench deal with concerns raised about pay rates, hours of work and penalty provisions. 3320 Distinguished Visitors 11 Nov 2009

The member for Gaven suggested that industrial action will increase as a result of the Fair Work Act. The Fair Work Act ensures that industrial disputes are governed by understandable, but tough rules. Under the Fair Work Act, industrial action can be protected only if it has been authorised by a mandatory secret ballot when bargaining for a new industrial agreement. The Fair Work Act also requires that bargaining agents for a proposed enterprise agreement must bargain in good faith. The requirement for good faith bargaining will decrease the incidence of protracted industrial action, I am advised, when one party refuses to negotiate. Any other industrial action is unlawful and Fair Work Australia has the authority to issue orders to prevent it. The independent umpire, Fair Work Australia, also has the power to make a binding special agreement for low-paid workers to settle matters in dispute during the bargaining process. It has broad powers to mediate or conciliate. At any time a party to the negotiations can ask Fair Work Australia to resolve issues in dispute by making a low-paid workplace determination. In addition, where protected action is causing or is threatening to cause significant harm to the Australian economy, or part of it, Fair Work Australia is able to order the parties to cease taking industrial action. If further conciliation does not lead to an agreement, Fair Work Australia may determine a settlement. Fair Work Australia may similarly act to end the industrial action and resolve a settlement for the bargaining participants where protected industrial action is protracted, is causing or threatening to cause imminent significant economic harm to the bargaining participants, and the dispute will not be resolved in the foreseeable future. But I must confess that the lowest point of what was a very low debate, the most galling and base political moment in this debate, was the suggestion by the member for Gaven that opposition to this bill was an act supporting of national unity that is comparable to storming the beaches of Gallipoli. I will not dignify the member’s grandiose delusions of glory, suffice to say that to make such a comparison on any day would be deeply misguided, but to make it today is simply grotesque. If the ghost of Banjo Paterson could be heard, he would express how violated he would feel to be quoted in such a base and unnecessary fashion by the member for Gaven. The finalisation of this referral bill has been a significant and major piece of work. Negotiations with the Commonwealth and other jurisdictions have been conducted over a period of time and with constant regard to the rights of the Queensland workforce. I place on the record my thanks to all the officers from the Department of Justice and Attorney-General who were involved in these negotiations, in particular Deputy Director-General Barry Leahy, head of the Office of Fair and Safe Work Queensland, who did a mighty job in progressing this matter for Queensland and to all of the officers involved in the development of this bill, namely the hardworking team in the private sector industrial relations unit in my department as well as strategic policy officers and those officers from other agencies, including Queensland Treasury and the Department of Communities. I strongly commend the bill to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! Before putting the question, there has been too much audible conversation in the House. Can I ask the member for Burnett, the member for Springwood, the member for Aspley, the member for Mudgeeraba and the Minister for Child Safety to return to their seats and to discontinue with audible conversation. Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. AYES, 46—Attwood, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Dick, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Johnstone, Jones, Kilburn, Lawlor, Male, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Roberts, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Kiernan NOES, 30—Bates, Crandon, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Foley, Hobbs, Johnson, Knuth, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Rickuss, Seeney, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Horan, Messenger Resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the clauses, I first apologise to the member for Springwood, who was in her seat when I asked her to return to it. Interruption. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I acknowledge in the public gallery tonight Ambassador Izzat Abdulhadi, head of the Palestinian delegation to Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific; Peter Wertheim, Executive Director, Executive Council of the Australian Jewry; David Paratz, President of the Queensland Jewish Board of Deputies; Jihad Abu Dabaat, President of the Queensland Palestinian Association; Jason Steinberg, Vice-President of the Jewish Board of Deputies; and Khalil Hamdan, co-founder of the Queensland Palestinian Association. Can we please welcome those gentlemen to the public gallery here this evening. 11 Nov 2009 Trade Measurement Legislation Repeal Bill 3321

FAIR WORK (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) AND OTHER PROVISIONS BILL

Consideration in Detail Resumed from p. 3320. Clauses 1 to 111, as read, agreed to. Schedules 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Third Reading Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (8.15 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. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (8.16 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.

TRADE MEASUREMENT LEGISLATION REPEAL BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 15 September 2009 (see p. 2224), on motion of Mr Lawlor— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (8.16 pm): I rise to speak to the Trade Measurement Legislation Repeal Bill 2009. At the outset I would like to say that the opposition will be supporting this bill. However, I do have a few questions that I would like the minister to address. The objective of the bill is to repeal the Trade Measurement Act 1990 and the Trade Measurement Administration Act 1990—the trade measurement acts. The regulations under the trade measurement acts that the Queensland government administers are the Trade Measurement (Measuring Instruments) Regulation 1991, the Trade Measurement (Miscellaneous) Regulation 1991, the Trade Measurement (Prepacked Articles) Regulation 1991 and the Trade Measurement (Weighbridges) Regulation 1991. I have personal experience in my previous business life in relation to the excellent work that the officers of Trade Measurement carry out when working for the Queensland government. As a businessman on the Gold Coast with a very thriving business called the Pet Barn, I thought it was a great idea to get 50-kilo bags of birdseed for a certain price, go and get my set of scales from the chemist shop, weigh out 1½-kilo bags of birdseed and then sell them off, which was a very profitable little business. I kept my staff members busy around the clock putting all these little bags of birdseed together. The good officers from Trade Measurement popped in and went through all of those bags and weighed them individually to make sure that I was not ripping off the public. Fortunately, that batch of birdseed all weighed up correctly. So I got a clean bill of health and the good people from Trade Measurement went on. Now I know that they will be going on to work for our friends out of Canberra. I am sure they will apply the same degree of intensity and dedication to the job at hand that they applied when they visited my business to ensure that the accurate recording of measurements in the retail and other sectors continues. As part of our vibrant and thriving business community it is important that trade measurement continues to be monitored and organised in the same way and to the same standard that it has been by the Queensland government in many past years. I hope to see no diminution in the service that business and industry receives following the passing of this responsibility from the states to the Commonwealth government. On that basis, we are very keen to support the bill and support the transfer of the officers, the equipment and the whole regime to Commonwealth control. However, we will be monitoring any change to Commonwealth circumstances, particularly in terms of costs to business in Queensland, that may be promulgated in future times. 3322 Trade Measurement Legislation Repeal Bill 11 Nov 2009

The Trade Measurement Administration Act 1990 will be repealed, as will the regulation attached to the act, the Trade Measurement Administration Regulation 1991. This will pave the way for a smooth transition to Commonwealth legislation. The legislation is another of the COAG reforms that will adopt a Commonwealth focus and it will implement Commonwealth legislation that requires a national trade measurement regime. The bill brings into line legislation agreed to under the Uniform Trade Measurement Legislation and Administration Agreement 1990. The legislation transfers powers to the Commonwealth to take full responsibility for both administration and enforcement, with enforcement to begin on 1 July 2010, with the cooperation of other states fulfilling their legislation transfer responsibilities. It is important that we continue to keep a very viable, appropriate and accurate trade measurement regime. As the minister said in his briefing note when announcing this legislation, studies in Australia, the USA and Canada have indicated that the annual value of goods sold by measure is typically about 50 per cent of GDP in developed countries. Based on this broad estimate, the trade measurement system in Australia may be underpinning transactions worth more than $400 billion per annum. It is estimated that business-to-business transactions account for about 75 per cent and retail transactions make up 25 per cent of this value. Quite clearly, this is an area of great importance to business in Australia and, of course, Queensland, which is our major concern. It is our duty and responsibility to protect the consumers of Queensland so that there is no area of uncertainty when purchasing goods. People should not have to worry about whether the chops or the birdseed that they buy are the correct weight. They must be able to shop with certainty. Consumer spending protects the retail industry and is something that we are trying to promote in this global financial crisis. No undermining of that confidence can be sustained. I will now focus on why we require trade measurement legislation. Trade measurement includes legal metrology, which involves all measurements carried out for any legal purpose. The background lies in the need for fair trade and includes measurements in more diverse areas such as health and safety, sound level metres, radiation dosimeters— Mr Lawlor: That’s a big word for you, Ray. Mr STEVENS: I take that interjection; I look forward to the minister repeating it later—and law enforcement, which involves vehicle speed, radar traps and breath analysers. It is very important that we get trade measurements correct. According to the parliamentary library, the state and territory governments require that all goods sold by measurement—weight, length, volume, area and count—are accurately measured, labelled and correctly priced. This includes petrol pumps, that is, the number of litres of petrol we get in our cars, shop scales, that is, how much birdseed we buy, weighbridges, prepackaged articles, machines for measuring et cetera. Trade measurement legislation has always been the responsibility of the states and the territories, but following the introduction and passing of this bill and other states and territories passing equivalent legislation, the Commonwealth will take full responsibility for a national trade measurement system. Mr O’Brien: You’d better give us the full hour on this, Ray. Mr STEVENS: I am going to do my best. I thank the member for Cook. The National Measurement Institute in the Commonwealth Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research will assume responsibility for the operation of the national trade measurement system. I repeat: the National Measurement Institute in the Commonwealth Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research will assume responsibility for the operation of the national trade measurement system. The history behind the development of national trade measurement legislation starts with the Scott review of the trade measurement system in 1985, which recommended a move towards a national scheme with regard to the administration of trade measurement. This was not taken up by the states and territories or the Commonwealth; rather they decided to introduce separate but consistent legislation according to the uniform trade measurement legislation model. Ten years later, in 1995, the Kean inquiry into Australian standards and conformance infrastructure reported that there had been a major decline in the trade measurement system and that all states and territories had not implemented uniform legislative requirements for a national trade measurement system to work. The Kean inquiry into Australian standards and conformance infrastructure explored the overall system of trade measurement and the lack of consistency with implementing trade measurement laws. The Kean inquiry’s major recommendations were as follows: that the Commonwealth assume full responsibility for trade measurement; that the national measurement act be amended to provide mandatory requirements based on the International Organisation of Legal Metrology; that the national measurement act defines civil time in terms of coordinated universal time; that the Commonwealth government recognises the National Measurement Laboratory, which at the time came under the CSIRO but now comes under the National Measurement Institute and is the responsibility of the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, as the peak body and assign it responsibility for providing leadership and coordination of Australia’s measurement system. 11 Nov 2009 Trade Measurement Legislation Repeal Bill 3323

The key recommendations of the Kean inquiry were responded to by the Keating government in a report titled Linking industry globally: Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Australia’s Standards and Conformance Infrastructure. That is a top read. The majority of recommendations proposed in the Kean inquiry report were agreed to by the government of the day. In 2004, the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs decided upon and agreed to a national review of trade measurement, which resulted in the finding that the current system had certain flaws. Those flaws were additional costs due to differing compliance requirements in each jurisdiction, a lack of equity in cost recovery, an ability to implement new processes and technologies within industry time frames, and inefficiencies when operating across state borders. Mr Lawlor: What if we just surrender? Mr STEVENS: The Labor government surrenders. I heard it from the minister himself. I do appreciate it, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a result of COAG’s discussions and under the Howard government, it was agreed on 13 April 2007 to establish a national trade measurement system, funded and administered by the federal government. Yet again the Liberal-National government comes up with policy ideas and the willpower to make decisions to go ahead with them and yet again the Labor Party follows suit. Our free-thinking, liberal view of the world contributes to working out the problems, making a decision on how to rectify the problem and then acting on it. Currently there are four main national organisations that contribute to the national measurement system in Australia. Mr Finn: What are they? Mr STEVENS: Coming. These are assisted by localised trade measurement authorities and legal metrology authorities to complete the requirements of the system. The four main national organisations are, member for Yeerongpilly, the National Measurement Institute, which is responsible for legal metrology and overseeing Australia’s units and standards of measurement; the National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia, which looks after laboratory accreditation; Standards Australia, which is in charge of standards specifications across-the-board; and the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand, which administers certification of products, personnel and management systems. The current national measurement system works on the International System of Units, the SI units. The National Measurement Act sets down that Australian legal units of measurement of a physical quantity are the sole legal units of measurement of that physical quantity. The International System of Units, or SI units as we in the business call them, were decided upon by international agreement at the General Conference on Weights and Measures in 1960, which is part of the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures. A government member: What was that? Mr STEVENS: ‘des Poids et Mesures’. Parlez vous Francais, Madam Deputy Speaker? Their mandate is to provide the basis for a single, coherent system of measurements throughout the world, traceable to the International System of Units. As of 17 September 2009, there are 53 member states of the BIPM, of which Australia is one, and 28 associate states and economies of the general conference. In Australia there is a need for consistency of processes, procedures and legislative requirements; hence, the importance of a national trade measurement scheme that encompasses all these areas. I would like to raise one issue with the minister in particular that I raised with his ministerial staff. The ministerial staff were coming back to me with the answer. I assume they would have provided the minister with the answer. The issue is in regard to breaches under this new national trade measurement system and the law that applies to this system. I ask the minister: is it the case that if there is a breach the court that has jurisdiction and presides over the case will be the Federal Court, as to my knowledge Commonwealth powers override state powers and therefore such breaches could not be dealt with through our state courts as they are currently? I will look to the minister in his summation to come forward with an answer. This seems to me to be an absurd and ridiculous situation, as the Federal Court would then preside over a guy who puts two kilos in a bag of birdseed when that is really a very small matter for determination by the Magistrates Court or a similar court in Queensland, which is currently the case. Obviously we do not need more work for our legal eagles. I know they are doing it a bit tough out there— there is support from some government members for more legal work to be involved—but I think we have to look after the interests of business in this matter and allow breaches to be dealt with through our legal system in the cheapest possible manner, even breaches of the said measurement scheme. I look forward to the minister coming forward with a determination on where those breaches will be dealt with and the legal costs involved with breaches of the Trade Measurement Act. 3324 Trade Measurement Legislation Repeal Bill 11 Nov 2009

It is also understood that the states and territories will transfer existing trade measurement equipment to the Commonwealth, with Queensland’s estimated share to be worth $0.087 million, and the Commonwealth will spend $29 million over four years to get the national scheme up and running and a further $24 million per annum. I ask the minister: are there any ongoing costs for Queensland associated with this changeover to a national trade measurement legislation system and will other future levies put on by the Commonwealth be protected through this legislation? We understand that when responsibility transfers in the first instance to the Commonwealth it will be all hunky-dory, as they may say, but the Commonwealth may tend to lift its taxing powers. It is not putting up taxes, as we have heard from other people around the place; it will be putting up fees and charges. So we do not want Queensland businesses to suffer because of more increases in non-taxes called fees and charges. Inspectors will continue to do spot checks, obviously, but will be employed by the Commonwealth under this new legislation. Will Queensland have any of the ongoing costs of inspectors in the field in relation to their deployment throughout Queensland? I have been assured by departmental officers that there will be no job losses. I am sure that the minister would guarantee that position. If positions are not available due to the restructure, staff will be redeployed. Is this a guarantee that the minister can give the House when we turn this state responsibility over to the Commonwealth? Extensive consultation on the review of the trade management system in 2006 seems to have taken place. We are happy with this, of course, as it was instigated by that wonderful John Howard government. In conclusion, I congratulate the federal and state governments for following through on a decision made by COAG when the financially astute Howard government was in government. As we know, it laid the groundwork to assure Australia of an efficient, effective and internationally approved trade measurement system and standards. I commend the bill to the House. Mr WETTENHALL (Barron River—ALP) (8.37 pm): I rise to speak in favour of the Trade Measurement Legislation Repeal Bill 2009. I begin my comments by congratulating the minister for bringing this important and interesting legislation before the House tonight. One of the key parts of this bill is the way in which it safeguards Queensland’s interests. A major review of the national arrangements for the administration of trade measurement has informed the government’s commitment to the nationally agreed reforms. Queensland officials have been extensively involved throughout the review, including providing input to the preparation of a public discussion paper and a regulatory impact statement. The review found that all stakeholder groups experienced fundamental problems with the current administrative arrangements. These include legislative differences across jurisdictions, different approaches to compliance and enforcement, a lack of a national policy focus and multiple licensing systems. These problems have a significant impact on Queensland traders operating in the national market. The subsequent COAG agreement to establish a single national system of trade measurement, funded and administered by the government, is regarded as the best way to overcome the problems in the system. Ongoing input by Queensland officials is ensuring that the state’s interests, including those of Queensland trade measurement employees, business and the community, are being fully addressed during development of the new regime. Queensland government officials are members of the national transition forum, which is facilitating ongoing consultation between the states and the Commonwealth on all aspects of the transition to the national regime. Queensland officials are also represented on nine working groups, providing consultation on specific areas of trade measurement. They are: the Business Processes Working Group, which is addressing IT based systems; the Communication Working Group; the Human Resources Working Group; the Inspectorate and Compliance Working Group; the Laboratories Working Group; the Legislation Working Group; the Licensing Working Group; the Property and Assets Working Group; and the Training and Competency Recognition Working Group. Senior Queensland Treasury officials are members of the COAG Business Regulation and Competition Working Group, which is monitoring implementation in accordance with the agreement. I am pleased to see that the national agreement also includes a Commonwealth commitment to maintaining the same level and standard of trade measurement services as are now currently provided by the states and territories. The Queensland trade measurement branch is highly respected for its professionalism and expertise and, like so many other areas, is regarded as the leader in the national arena. I am also pleased to see that arrangements are being made to ensure that existing staff will not be disadvantaged by the move to a national regime. The Commonwealth has offered positions to all trade measurement staff for employment in similar roles and locations with similar salary scales. Protecting this important resource will help to safeguard the interests of our community. I want to conclude by briefly sketching some of the benefits of these trade measurement reforms. Perhaps this is not something we think about every day as we go about our daily business, but since this legislation was first discussed it has been something that I have given a lot of thought to because trade measurement plays a vital role in our community, providing a legal framework that ensures weights and measures used in trade are accurate—in other words, ensuring that we get what we pay for. Its economic value in Australia is estimated to be $400 billion per year. 11 Nov 2009 Trade Measurement Legislation Repeal Bill 3325

A sound system of trade measurement is vital to fair competition and the protection of producers and suppliers trading raw materials and manufactured components as well as products. Seventy- five per cent of trade measurement transactions—that is, where goods are sold by a reference to weight or other measurement—are business to business transactions. This bill will progress the government’s commitment to nationally agreed reforms to the administration of trade measurement. As I mentioned before, these reforms are the result of a comprehensive review commissioned by COAG, culminating in an agreement by all Australian jurisdictions at the April 2007 meeting of COAG to establish a national system. For many years, the states and territories have administered trade measurement law in Australia, but the review that has been undertaken has shown that all stakeholders experience fundamental problems with the cross jurisdictional administrative arrangements that I mentioned before. New national law passed in December 2008 has adopted the state and territory trade measurement law. Building on the uniform trade measurement law currently administered by states and territories, it will provide for a consistent approach to enforcement across Australia starting on 1 July 2010. Businesses trading goods across borders will be able to simplify their compliance practices as they will be subject to one set of rules and will be dealing with only one regulator. Also, where goods are traded overseas by reference to measurement, a uniform approach to regulation will enhance Australia’s international reputation. This is particularly important with Australia being a major supplier of bulk goods such as coal, wheat and sugar. Organisations that are licensed to verify the performance of trade measuring instruments will also comply with only one set of national requirements, and their workforces will be trained to one national competency standard, thus allowing for the national deployment of staff. Where there are charges for trade measurement services provided by government, they will be uniform, removing current inequities for businesses in different states. A single national regulator will be able to provide a framework for consistent and timely adoption of new technologies and processes by industry. It will provide a single technically sound, policy platform on which to enter into international agreements. I am sure all members will be pleased to hear that, based on data supplied by the states and territories, the Commonwealth will set aside $24 million per annum to fund ongoing national trade measurement operations. Central administration of trade measurement will be a win-win outcome for businesses, consumers and government. It enables the development of consistent and timely policies affecting the adoption of new technologies and processes used by industry. Many producers, agents and carriers rely on trade measurement and operate in the national market. Compliance with a single set of rules is expected to result in cost reductions and efficiency gains, particularly for businesses trading goods across borders. These benefits will flow on to the wider community. I commend the bill to the House. Mr EMERSON (Indooroopilly—LNP) (8.45 pm): I rise to briefly contribute to the debate on the Trade Measurement Legislation Repeal Bill 2009. Can I say that, as a new member in this House— Mr Watt interjected. Mr EMERSON: The member for Everton is obviously very keen to hear about this very important bill before the House. As I said, as a new member in the House, I was walking on the third floor of the parliamentary annexe earlier today and I noticed there was a display case containing a set of imperial measurement standards. These measurements of capacity—of half bushel to quarter gill—and mass— of 56 pounds to half dram—had been used since early last century at the Brisbane office of the weights and measures branch as standards for Queensland. The original standards were purchased from London in 1879 and are now lodged at the Queensland Museum. I am young enough to have never been taught the imperial system and the terms seem both antiquated and cumbersome. For instance, the 153,000 megalitres to be held at the now scrapped Traveston Dam is equivalent to 41-million-million drams. But whether of course it is megalitres or drams, the people of the Mary Valley and those who are concerned about the environment must be celebrating’s today’s decision. Sadly, all Queenslanders must be shaking their heads at the half a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money wasted by this bungling Labor government on this dam. That is a lot of money in any measurement. The ability to weigh and measure with certainly has been important since trade first began—not just for traders but also for consumers. But technologies change, standards change, expectations change. That is what this bill is all about—recognising the need of trade in the 21st century by facilitating a national system of trade measurement as agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments, COAG. Some 209 years ago, a parliament sat down to debate a bill similar in idea to the bill before parliament. They debated the need to give away power and allow this great country we have the privilege of living in to be born. By voting in the Commonwealth of Australian Constitution Act, our founding fathers and colleagues in the United Kingdom gave our former colony the power to legislate for the people of Queensland. On 14 May 1900, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Joseph Chamberlain, rose to speak on the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Bill. He said, ‘After it has 3326 Trade Measurement Legislation Repeal Bill 11 Nov 2009 been passed, there will be for Australia under one administration a uniform postal and telegraphic service, and provision is made making it possible hereafter for railway communications to be under similar control.’ What Mr Chamberlain and his parliamentary colleagues did not envisage was a need to legislate into existence uniform, accurate measurement standards to ensure fair trade. Under the current system of trade measurement, the National Measurement Act 1960 provides the regulations and guidelines, and the individual states and territories fill in the gaps each with their own piece of legislation and its associated standards. Collectively known as the uniform trade measurement legislation, these various documents are administered by the states and territories under a formal agreement signed by the majority of the jurisdictions back in 1990. Over the years, changes have been made to the system that have inevitably led to major inconsistencies and different interpretations. This causes all kinds of problems for employers and employees in the trade industry who conduct business across states and territories and often get tangled in the sticky red tape. It was the intention of the drafters of the Australian Constitution that governments not burden people with layers of bureaucracy, rules and regulations but rather, where possible and necessary, simply have one governing set of central rules and cut the nonsense out. To once again quote Joseph Chamberlain, ‘If it be possible, though I hardly think it is, we will be more cordial when we have to deal with a single central authority on these matters instead of having severally to consult six independent governments.’ If it were not for the language of the quote, it would be possible to believe that this were said by one of the many local tradesmen in my electorate of Indooroopilly. In February 2006 COAG met and identified the need for a uniform trade measurement system. Later on in 2007 it was agreed that all jurisdictions would cooperate to remove the barriers prohibiting the implementation of a national system. I understand that this move, which was initiated under the Howard-Costello government some years ago, is welcomed by the industry. Although the national system of trade measurement is not a matter that is often raised at my fortnightly community corners or when I am out doorknocking local businesses in the area, the next time I attend the opening of a hardware store, stop to chat to a local landscape supplier or talk to a local builder I will be sure to mention these reforms to them, and I am sure they will be as excited as this House is about this bill. I encourage MPs both new and old, and visitors to the parliament, to have a look at those standards of measurement on display of the third floor of the Annexe. I commend the bill to the House. Mr RYAN (Morayfield—ALP) (8.51 pm): I rise to make a riveting contribution to this exciting topic. Of course, I rise in support of the Trade Measurement Legislation Repeal Bill. Mr Watt: A genuine supporter of the bill. Mr RYAN: I take that interjection from the member for Everton. I want to point out to members in the House that we should not underestimate the importance of this bill. We do measure everything. Business and society could not operate without measurement, and the integrity of that operation would not be maintained if we did not have a universal standard for those measurements. Think about it for a moment: time is very important. If we did not have a universal standard for time then members in this House would be able to talk on a topic as riveting as this all night. We measure length, speed, volume, weight and temperature. These measures are standard and international, and that is important to our way of life and our system of business and commerce. Some members may not be aware of an international system for units which provide base standards and a practical internationally consistent standard of units of measurement. Members will be interested to hear what some of those units are, I am sure. For the interest of members, I thought I would point out a couple of those including the definitions. Of course we have the metre. A metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 fractions of a second. We also have the kilogram. A kilogram is the unit of mass that is equal to the international prototype of the kilogram. We also have the second. A second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. I point that out not only for the interest of members, because I am sure they would be interested, but in case they are ever on Who Wants to be a Millionaire and they are asked one of those questions. But it points out the importance of having an international system, the robustness and the integrity that is based on that, and the consistency that people who subscribe to standard units of measurement ascribe to. Of course, Australia has adopted those international standards of units. I want to focus on one particular aspect and that is the importance of trade measurement. Trade measurement is the use of standard forms of measurement as the basis for the price in a transaction. Traders and consumers expect that, when purchasing goods sold on the basis of measurement—for example, a price per litre—they receive the amount that they pay for. When consumers fill up their car at a service station, the trade measurement system ensures that the petrol pump has truly delivered the number of litres shown on the pump. Shelves of a hardware store or a supermarket are also filled with 11 Nov 2009 Trade Measurement Legislation Repeal Bill 3327 packaged products sold throughout the production and supply chain on the basis of measurement. Accuracy of the instrument is important to both the buyer and the seller. The buyer does not want to receive less than what was paid for and the seller cannot afford to give away more than what was paid for. Suppliers want to be able to compete on a level playing field. For a primary producer marketing a crop of grain, incorrect readings from an incorrect weighing instrument may result in a loss of thousands of dollars. Further up the production chain, a manufacturer buying a semitrailer load of flour or canola oil may also suffer a financial setback if a weighing instrument is faulty. Trade measurement law ensures the community can have confidence in receiving the correct quantity where a transaction relies on a measuring instrument or a measurement statement printed on a prepackaged item. The law also ensures that measuring instruments used for trade are approved as being suitable for the purpose. Trade measurement officers regularly go from place to place across Queensland testing measuring instruments for accuracy and conducting spot checks to ensure the quantity in prepacks is the amount stated on the label of the pack within regulated levels of tolerance. The authority maintains standards and test procedures covering almost every sector of industry. For example, officers test high-precision measuring instruments such as those used by pharmacists and jewellers, larger instruments such as those used by produce agents, warehouses and grocers, and very large instruments such as those used by transport haulers and bulk fuel suppliers. Trade measurement officers undertake spot checks covering a very broad range of prepacked goods at all sorts of commercial premises including wholesalers, retailers and import-export businesses to test the accuracy of quantity statements. We only need to have a look at the shelves of a hardware store or a supermarket to get an idea of the range of prepackaged products sold throughout the production and supply chain on the basis of measurement. Trade measurement law also includes licensing requirements for the owners and operators of public weighbridges and for private servicing organisations. On the topic of public weighbridges, I would like to commend the good work of the transport officers who operate out of the Burpengary weigh station. They do a tremendous job and are there making our roads a safer place. The trade measurement licensing authority ensures that appropriate people, infrastructure and systems are used. For example, a retailer requiring maintenance work or having a problem with a measuring instrument may call upon a servicing licensee who will have appropriate qualifications and equipment to undertake the testing and certification of the instrument’s accuracy, allowing it back on stream for use. Whether you are a farmer marketing produce, a manufacturer buying the raw material or a family buying household supplies, the work of the trade measurement office is vital to the interests of the whole community. For years the Queensland trade measurement branch of the Office of Fair Trading has been regarded as a leader in the national field of trade measurement, and I commend them for their dedication to their profession and their hard work. I am pleased that this Labor government has assured that all workers are not disadvantaged as a result of this referral of powers to the Commonwealth, and I note with much pleasure that all staff have been offered employment by the Commonwealth to continue in their role. This bill marks a significant turning point in Queensland’s history, and we should acknowledge the important work performed by trade measurement staff servicing Queensland consumers and businesses. I commend the minister, his staff and the department on their work in bringing this bill before the House, and I commend the bill to the House. Mr McLINDON (Beaudesert—LNP) (8.58 pm): I wish to make a humble contribution to the debate on the Trade Measurement Legislation Repeal Bill 2009. I have drastically reduced my speech because the member for Morayfield has covered many of the aspects that I intended to cover here tonight. The stated objectives of the bill are to repeal the Trade Measurement Act 1990 and the Trade Measurement Administration Act 1990 and to introduce transitional measures for a seamless transfer of the state responsibility for administration and enforcement of trade measurement to a national regime. I want to congratulate the minister on his second reading speech for a very interesting and thorough historical account of measurement in action. I must say that I actually read his speech from top to bottom and I was very intrigued by the amount and extent of the history involved in just exactly where the term ‘measurement’ came from and where it is going to. There is no doubt that a national system of trade measurement will eliminate the red tape impeding business such as the legislative differences, the need for multiple licences and varied compliance duplications and enforcement regimes. The trade measurement system in Australia underpins transactions in the order of around $400 billion per annum. Seventy per cent of these transactions are business to business and 25 per cent are within the retail sector. State legislation has up until now covered the inspection and enforcement powers excluding utility meters and the setting of the various regulations surrounding trade measurement. National consistency is welcomed and well overdue. 3328 Trade Measurement Legislation Repeal Bill 11 Nov 2009

It is an interesting point that Labor talks a lot about cooperative federalism, yet it tried twice in the 1980s and 1990s to deliver national trade measurement yet failed. The issue of establishing a single national system of trade measurement has been on the agenda for more than 20 years and it has been a very long road. It started in the then department of science which, in 1985, commissioned a review of the trade management system known as the Scott review. It took until 13 April 2007 when the Council of Australian Governments, under the leadership of former Prime Minister Howard, agreed to establish a national system of trade measurement to be administered by the Commonwealth from 1 July 2010. The Queensland government should have been more vocal to the Commonwealth on regulatory impact statements regarding this legislation. In its 2006 report, the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs undertook a series of cost-benefit studies looking into the implementation of a national trade measurement system. Surprisingly, the study was unable to explicitly quantify the significant benefits for the economy, identifying around a $16.2 million cost to government and a $22 million benefit to business. So the state government should have really been in the ear of the Commonwealth about regulatory impact statements earlier on in the piece. Mind you, none of this bill is all that surprising given the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs is the bastion of reform that has dragged the chain so much on getting this legislation through to completion, as we have heard in parliaments around the country. The same group that has held meetings in Adelaide, Melbourne and even across to New Zealand—complete with ministerial staff, advisers, press secretaries and numerous support staff travelling the country and even internationally— to get resolutions on methods to stipulate how people who sell firewood must measure that commodity if they are selling by volume certainly took about seven years, and the ridiculous tale of the Labor state governments dragging the chain with meetings and trips around the nation is another chapter in the concept of federalism as espoused by Labor. The LNP is pleased that at last the states have stopped dragging the chain and welcomes the measure to have a singular regulator for trade measurement that the Howard government fought repeatedly to implement across this nation. And it could not have come at a better time, because the term ‘measurement’ in this day and age has become more important than ever as we have a state government that has squeezed the good Queenslanders of this state, whether it be with the increase in car registration or fuel taxes. As we screw Queenslanders down week by week under this cold, heartless and deceitful government, the word ‘measurement’ is ever so much more important in our daily lives as we all watch the bottom line of our incomings and outgoings. As the cost of living increases and this government continues, as bills come before this House time and time again, to completely short-change Queenslanders, I am glad that now we have a system in place where we have the measurement to make sure that the consumer is protected. I want to thank the government for introducing this bill and we support it wholeheartedly. I hope that the term ‘measurement’ will mean that little bit more in each of our lives as we balance the budget and ensure that our lifestyles are not compromised under this Labor government. Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (9.03 pm): I rise to support the Trade Measurement Legislation Repeal Bill 2009. In doing so, I want to talk about the very important work that the Trade Measurement inspectors have done over the decades and my strong support for the provisions with regard to their security of employment. The transfer of responsibility for administration of trade measurement to the Commonwealth is a significant milestone and should not go by without acknowledging the contribution of this function to the Queensland economy and the work by the Queensland Trade Measurement staff. Since Queensland became a self-governing colony 150 years ago, Queensland Trade Measurement inspectors have gone about their work of ensuring reliability of measurement equipment used in trade. In more recent times with a leap forward in transport, communications and technology, the local market has transformed into a national and international market. Consequently, the role of the trade measurement inspector has become increasingly technical and specialised. Trade measurement expertise and test procedures must keep pace with the ongoing advancement in measuring equipment and processes used by industry as the diversity, complexity and output of production increases. Trade Measurement inspectors can be seen testing measuring instruments used by grocery retailers and service stations. In fact, they operate across the spectrum of industry, ensuring the accuracy of measuring instruments, including in primary and secondary production. For example, they can test measuring equipment used by processing and packing plants, warehouses, produce agents, road and railway transport carriers, depots and ports. Importantly, they give certainty to the buyer in ensuring that we actually get what we pay for. As a former fair trading minister myself, I know that the Queensland inspectorate is highly regarded for its professionalism and its expertise. It is no accident therefore that Queensland is regarded as the leader in the national field of trade measurement. In the current state based legislation system, in most cases Queensland has led any necessary reforms to provide the template for the nation. Queenslanders can indeed be very pleased and very proud of the good work of inspectors. That is why I am pleased to see that arrangements are being made to ensure that existing staff will not be disadvantaged by the move to a national regime. The Commonwealth has offered positions to all Trade Measurement staff for employment in similar roles and locations with similar salary scales. 11 Nov 2009 Trade Measurement Legislation Repeal Bill 3329

Queensland Trade Measurement employees will also have the choice of remaining with QSuper or going over to a Commonwealth approved super scheme. Queensland has 28 Trade Measurement staff and they do an absolutely excellent job. Most of them have indicated that they may accept the Commonwealth offer of employment. The security of employees is of paramount concern, and the Bligh government will make every effort to satisfactorily redeploy any individuals who may decline the offer. I am pleased that the Queensland Public Sector Union is being consulted throughout the transition process and I commend the bill to the House. Hon. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading) (9.07 pm), in reply: I thank all members for their contributions and support for the amendments contained in this bill. However, I have to say that if Queensland had a boring team the shadow minister would be captain, coach and goal kicker. Dr Flegg: Come on, Minister! That’s pretty nasty. Mr LAWLOR: Weights and measures is a topic which, as I have commented previously, initially seems rather dry. You would not gather that from the speeches that we have heard here tonight! It really is a rather fascinating subject and we have heard a lot of the history of weights and measures tonight, and this bill provides an opportunity to draw attention to the important work carried out by Trade Measurement officers since the earliest days of Queensland’s history. History has shown that all nations throughout time have found the necessity for regulating dealings with weights and measures, and Queensland is no different. Since Queensland became a self-governing colony 150 years ago, the Queensland government has protected rights of consumers and traders who expect correct measurement when buying goods through trade measurement activities. The work of the Trade Measurement branch of the Office of Fair Trading has been a vital ingredient of Queensland’s well-functioning market. Most of Queensland’s Trade Measurement staff have indicated that they may accept the Commonwealth’s offer of employment, so Queensland will continue to be serviced by people whose professionalism and commitment have been demonstrated over many years, and that is one issue that the shadow minister raised. I have done this before, but I want to particularly acknowledge the work of Malcolm Bartlett, the chief inspector, who has given almost 40 years of service to Queensland Trade Measurement. In relation to some of the issues raised by the shadow minister, he— An honourable member interjected. Mr LAWLOR: I am not in his class. An honourable member: We know that. Mr LAWLOR: So far as boring goes. The intention is that the offences, penalties and provisions for the enforcement will be similar under the new Commonwealth law in the amended National Measurement Act as they are currently in the state trade measurement legislation. As there is under the existing state legislation, there will be infringement notice offences under the new Commonwealth law, with penalties set at roughly the same dollar amount as is currently the case under the state law. Currently under the state law, there are also offences that are dealt with in the Magistrates Court. The maximum penalty for those offences is $20,000. Similarly, there will be offences under the new Commonwealth law that will continue to be heard in the state Magistrates Court pursuant to the Judiciary Act 1903. These offences have a maximum penalty of $22,000. This is a slight increase on the state legislation; however, the current state penalty regime has not changed since 1991. The offence provision regime under the new Commonwealth law will be divided into those offences that create strict liability offences—these will be those offences for which an infringement notice may be given—and those offences requiring a fault element. These offences will be heard and determined in the state Magistrates Court. So essentially, nothing will change so far as the court enforcement procedure goes. In relation to future costs to the state following transition, there will be none and nor will there be any ongoing cost to the state. Trade measurement will be fully funded, administered and enforced by the Commonwealth. The former minister, the member for Albert, covered issues in relation to staff. Any Queensland officer wishing to take up the Commonwealth’s offer will remain employed by the state. In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge that the reform of trade measurement is just one of 27 regulatory and business COAG reforms that Queensland is involved in as part of the National Partnership Agreement to Deliver a Seamless National Economy. The reform agenda aims to deliver more consistent regulation across all jurisdictions and reduce excessive compliance costs on business, which will ultimately benefit both Queensland and the national economy. The Trade Measurement Legislation Repeal Bill 2009 will contribute towards that goal, ensuring that business need only comply with a single set of rules. It is expected to lead to cost reductions and efficiency gains, particularly for those businesses trading across borders. These benefits will flow to the wider community. I thank all honourable members for their support for the bill. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. 3330 Adjournment 11 Nov 2009

Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 18, as read, agreed to. Schedule, as read, agreed to. Third Reading Hon. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading) (9.13 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. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading) (9.13 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.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (9.13 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Italian Catholic Federation Aspley-Geebung Ms DAVIS (Aspley—LNP) (9.14 pm): I rise to speak about an event that I had the opportunity to attend recently and the community group that was the driving force behind it. As part of the sesquicentenary celebrations, the Italian Catholic Federation Aspley-Geebung launched two volumes of the English version of the book The Italians of Brisbane. It was wonderful to have the author, Father Fabio Baggio, in attendance inside a building designed by the self-taught Florentine architect Andrea Stombuco. Stombuco was attracted to Brisbane in 1874 and he has certainly left a beautiful legacy of buildings right across the city. The books commence with a history of the English settlement of Brisbane and then go on to give an account of the contribution of Italian migrants from 1870 by way of architecture, education, music, art, medical sculpture, merchant trading, agriculture and motel and restaurant businesses. The translation of these books into English is important, as the stories of the parents, grandparents and great- grandparents of today’s generation give them an historical context of how their ancestors helped mould Queensland into the best place in the world in which to live. Indeed, there are many people in the books, especially in volume 2, who are still alive today. The launching of the books was a dedication to Italian culture, its heritage and language and its place in the history of Brisbane. In my electorate there are just under 1,000 people who speak Italian at home and there are just under 1,600 people whose parents were born in Italy. They are just some of the people for whom the English translation of the books is so important. The Italian community in the Aspley electorate is vibrant, and tonight I would like to speak about the work of the Italian Catholic Federation Aspley-Geebung. I find it really encouraging that FCI in my area services all ages. FCI’s Care and Concern Group visits the elderly in retirement villages and nursing homes, and they organise community days and outings and movie nights in Italian. Their Saint Alfio choir regularly sings at mass and for other special occasions. The members of the choir meet weekly. They are mostly older men and women and singing in the choir is generally their only artistic outlet. The GI Youth Group was founded more recently, and one of its aims is to continue to keep the Italian culture alive and not forgotten amongst the younger members of the community. FCI also fundraises for other organisations through dinner dances. The Cancer Fund, the Leukaemia Foundation and Cystic Fibrosis Queensland have been worthy recipients of the proceeds of these fundraising events. I would like to commend the efforts of the committee of the FCI and in particular Connie Massadi for their efforts in securing funding for the translation of the books and for organising such a well- attended launch. It is organisations such as the FCI Aspley-Geebung that support local communities. We owe it to our future generations to preserve our multicultural heritage, and I hope that the translation of these books will increase public awareness of the contribution of Italian people to this city and to this state. 11 Nov 2009 Adjournment 3331

Centenary Rowing Club Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (9.16 pm): First of all I would like to acknowledge my brother, Ron, and his wife, Gloria Stephenson, and my niece, Lynda Morris, who are in the gallery tonight. As the local member for Mount Ommaney, I have had a long association with the Centenary Rowing Club and particularly the Centenary Canoe Club from the very beginnings of their involvement in the Centenary area over 11 years ago. So in July this year I was pleased to be able to represent the Minister for Sport, Phil Reeves MP, to officially open on his behalf the Centenary Rowing Club’s new pontoon. Over the years I have assisted the club with various matters, including locating a shed for the storage and repair of their boats. The Centenary Rowing Club is the third largest rowing club in Queensland, with approximately 200 young members ranging in age from 12 to 17 from more than 20 schools. I understand that the club is well on its way to being the largest rowing club in Queensland within five years. The club was established in 2001 as part of the Centenary Canoe and Rowing Club. In 2006 the rowing club separated from the canoe club, but it has maintained a working partnership. Since 1 July 1998, the Department of Sport and Recreation has provided $141,493 in funding to the club, comprising the pontoon project under the Minor Facilities Program and $13,680 for four projects under the Club Development Program to accredit coaches and volunteers, conduct first-aid training and host come- and-try days. The club is happy that the new pontoon will improve the club’s ability to grow its junior membership significantly and increase the number of training sessions and competitions. The pontoon enables members to access the river more easily and increase the number and speed of launches. The club also applied in 2008 for a grant under the Major Facilities Program to complete stage 1 of the clubhouse project. The local community is keen to see this clubhouse established to benefit the increasing number of young people from local schools who are participating in the sport. On a number of occasions I have called for the Minister for Sport to visit the club to see firsthand the enthusiasm, skills and competitiveness of the young rowers and the long-term benefit of having this club in the Centenary suburbs. In my local community I actively support all of the great work of volunteers who provide the opportunity for the young and not so young to participate in sports. As patron of the Falcons West Brisbane Basketball Association, the Centenary Junior Rugby League Football Club, the Oxley State School Amateur Swimming Club and the Centenary Table Tennis Association, I have seen firsthand the way these clubs develop and grow their membership through their commitment to the health and wellbeing of the community. We all experienced the excitement of watching the skill of players in the recent AFL and NRL finals, but it is important that we also participate in sport. As a government, we are very keen to encourage more Queenslanders of all ages to get involved in sport and recreation. (Time expired) Bowen Family Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (9.19 pm): I want to address the issue of ‘Operation Zante’ as it is known. That is of course the restoration of the grave site of Sir George Bowen, the Contessa Diamantina Roma—Lady Bowen—and one of their daughters. Lady Bowen, as she is perhaps best known to Queenslanders, was the wife of Queensland’s first Governor, Sir George Ferguson Bowen. Born in the Ionian islands, part of a newly independent Greece, Contessa Diamantina Roma was part of a small aristocracy dating back to the Venetian occupation of the 13th century. She married Sir George Bowen, the then secretary of the islands under British rule, in 1856 and together with Sir George Lady Bowen moved to Brisbane in 1859. Arriving off Brisbane on HMS Cordelia—and it is interesting to note the historical connection with South Brisbane—the official party transferred to the steamer Breadalbane and proceeded up river to the quay at the bottom of Edward Street. So it was that amongst a crowd of 5,000 citizens at the deanery we know as St John’s Cathedral today the proclamation of the state of Queensland was read out on 10 December 1859. Mr Reeves: Do you remember it? Mr NICHOLLS: No, but I am sure the member does. Lady Bowen was a well loved hostess of grace and charm. Many parts of Queensland are testament to her poise and to her dedication to the people of Queensland. The Lady Bowen Hospital was the first ‘lying-in’ hospital to reduce maternal and infant mortality rates and the Diamantina Home for Incurables was the first to offer terminal patients care. Of course the town of Roma, the Diamantina River, orphanages and what was ultimately to become the PA Hospital were named after her. 3332 Adjournment 11 Nov 2009

So it was that after eight years in the colony Lady Bowen and Sir George were then transferred to New Zealand where he was to become the Governor-General. She subsequently died in 1893 of an acute case of bronchitis and she was interred in the family grave at Kensal Green in London. I table for the information of the House and the record a copy of a photograph of the grave.

Tabled paper: Photograph of gravestone of Lady Bowen [1317]. It is a sad fact that this government is refusing to spend $10,000 to upgrade, to restore and to put a conservation plan in place for the grave of Lady Bowen. In our 150th year how can it be that, when the Premier of this state can find $1.9 million to save her posterity in relation to her privatisation of assets, we cannot find less than $10,000 to run a restoration plan and to restore the grave of this charitable and wonderful historical figure? I call on this government to find the money necessary to ensure that this grave, this marker of posterity, is maintained and to establish a program to conserve it. If this does not occur, perhaps it is the case that this government just does not give a damn. (Time expired)

Woodridge State High School; Woodridge State School Mrs SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (9.23 pm): There is a great sense of pride within the school communities in Woodridge and in recent state-wide awards both Woodridge State High School and Woodridge State School have been recognised for their excellence in the responsive way they are preparing their students. Woodridge State High School, under the leadership of Mr John Norfolk and assisted by a wonderful, dedicated band of teachers and other staff members as well as volunteers, was runner-up in the State Premier’s Awards for Public Service Delivery in the Smart State section. Its submission, ‘Stand tall, walk proud—educating, enriching, enhancing’, is a whole-of-school approach to create strong educational foundations, ensuring improved student outcomes through targeting academic and vocational streams and improving school grounds and facilities. With approximately 60 different cultural groups, including a large Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander contingent, many Pacific Islanders and students from refugee backgrounds—from African nations and Burma—who often come with no English language at all, a strong special education program and an intensive language unit, this school is really meeting the needs of students in a remarkable way. Many students are gifted musically and on the sporting field and are now being challenged more than ever to reach higher and higher standards in both academic and vocational areas. Let me now turn to another great result, this time for Woodridge State School, in the recent showcase awards for excellence. Under the leadership of Principal Garry Molloy and, again, with a remarkable and dedicated band of teachers, other staff members, volunteers and many partner organisations, their submission ‘We are one in Woodridge’ was the outright winner in the inclusive education section. It is truly a little United Nations at Woodridge State School, with students coming from 30 different nationalities and 75 per cent of students having English as second language. Many come to the school from refugee families and have no English language at all. An intensive language centre supports new arrival students, and there are six full-time ESL teachers. Support teachers work across all classes to collaboratively plan carefully so individual needs are catered for. A teacher aide/liaison officer cares for the needs of Indigenous students while other community liaison officers play a vital role right across the school community. The school is foremost a happy, welcoming place with attention to each individual student. If Woodridge State School could teach the world what it has learned about fostering understanding, communication, sharing cultures and supporting and encouraging one another, the world truly would be at peace. It has many wonderful programs. It has 30 different cultural groups. Some of the partners include Griffith University, Acces Services, Multilink and mental health. Programs such as ‘Keys to Success—You Can Do It are designed around social and emotional learning. (Time expired)

Concrete Plant, Kunda Park; Traveston Dam Mr DICKSON (Buderim—LNP) (9.26 pm): Last week there was a very important vote in the Sunshine Coast Regional Council. It involved the approval of a concrete batching plant in the Sunshine Coast industrial area of Kunda Park. Council staff recommended that the plant, one of two planned for the area, be approved. This was despite the fact that the application provided for silos 23 metres high. The building height limit in this precinct is 15 metres. The staff advanced the view that the silos constituted a structure rather than a building so the height limit did not apply. I would defy anyone to justify how a concrete batching plant with silos can be described in any terms other than a building. It sounds very much like a way of getting around the provisions of the building code. 11 Nov 2009 Adjournment 3333

However, this is not an issue about concrete plants. If this application had been approved in its original form it would have created a very important precedent. There is another industry that plans to set up a plant in the same part of Kunda Park. It is an asphalt company. If that is approved it could have a disastrous impact on the surrounding community. Kunda Park is predominantly a light industrial area. It is surrounded by residential neighbourhoods in Maroochydore, Buderim and Diddillibah. There are two conservation parks adjacent to it, along with a sporting complex used by thousands of children and adults. This is not an appropriate location for an asphalt plant that would operate around the clock and would emit some very noxious fumes. Some reports suggest that those emissions could pose a very real threat to the health of those people living nearby. I am the first to acknowledge that these heavy industries are essential. Certainly we need to encourage more industry on the Sunshine Coast to create jobs, but we must locate those industries in the right places. Kunda Park is not the right place. It is just too close to surrounding residential, environmental and recreational areas. Approving the application for a concrete batching plant with 23-metre silos would have paved the way for the approval of the asphalt plant. It was challenged by the Sunshine Coast regional councillor for the area, Ted Hungerford. He took a motion to the council meeting, calling for the plant’s approval to be conditional on the silos not exceeding the 15-metre height limit. This was in response to representations from the local community, which was very concerned about this precedent being set. The amendment to the application would allow the plant to proceed but in a modified form that complies with the council’s building code. Councillor Hungerford was supported by four of his council colleagues and his motion was carried. I would like to applaud councillors Blumel, Dickson, Tatton and Thompson for voting in the interests of their community. To suggest that a concrete plant is a ‘structure’ rather than a building and therefore not subject to the council’s height limits is clearly a nonsense. Far more serious is the precedent that would have been set. The Sunshine Coast community should join me in congratulating Councillor Hungerford and his colleagues. I call on the Premier to apologise to the people of the Mary Valley. I also call on the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning to reallocate the money that was going to be put toward the Traveston Dam to be now put towards the new Sunshine Coast University Hospital. As we are all aware, the federal minister today knocked back the dam. I think the government should now look at doing what it promised during the election campaign: deliver the hospital that it promised the people of the Sunshine Coast. Loganholme State School Mr MOORHEAD (Waterford—ALP) (9.29 pm): Like the member for Woodridge, I come to this parliament with great news about the schools of the Logan area. At the 2009 showcase awards for excellence, Loganholme State School took out the state award for the early years initiative. Under the leadership of Vic Graham and his team, and with the contribution of former deputy principal Rosemary Caswell, Loganholme State School was recognised for its Transitions in Trust program. Transitions in Trust is an innovative program that develops reading and writing skills in children in the early years. It is innovative because it thinks outside the box by working with children who are yet to be enrolled in the school. This program works hand-in-hand with local child-care centres and preschools to ensure that children attend prep and grade 1 with basic reading skills and a platform for learning in place. Part of the program tracks every child’s achievement against the key learning areas of reading and writing. That means that Loganholme State School can ensure that no-one falls through the cracks and that every child keeps up with literacy and numeracy standards, which are the key to moving forward into further education. The program also involves the introduction of children to schooling in the year before they come to prep by allowing child-care centres and play groups to integrate with the school through information sessions in the final term of the school year. Those sessions are just about to get underway. The program also provides a pre-prep reading program which parents can attend at the school with their children who are yet to enrol in the school and engage in a reading program, assisted by the local literacy support teachers. A great example of this involves a young student called Georgina. After her first day in prep she returned home and told her mother that she was disappointed because she could not read, even though she had already been at school for a whole day. The success of this program has seen people voting with their feet. Enrolment at the school has continued to grow as word of the success of the program gets out. As well as being successful at the showcase awards, the school has received $20,000 to put towards new innovative programs. This is a great achievement in terms of literacy and numeracy and goes well with the facility upgrades that are going on at Loganholme State School. Building the Education Revolution has provided funding for a new library and hall, which are underway. The school has also received considerable funding for classroom refurbishment as part of the State Schools of Tomorrow program, announced on Monday. I thank the Minister for Education for the support he has given to the students and staff of the Loganholme State School. 3334 Adjournment 11 Nov 2009

Public Transport Dr FLEGG (Moggill—LNP) (9.32 pm): Can members imagine the reaction of public transport patrons in western Brisbane when they picked up the Courier-Mail and read that transport fares were to rise by between 20 per cent and 40 per cent immediately and 100 per cent by 2014? If someone takes a five-zone trip from Moggill to the city, the current go card costs $3.44 and in January it will cost $4.10. By 2014 it will cost over $14 a day to make a return trip. That is nearly $75 a week. The cost of a three-zone trip from Moggill into Kenmore will rise from $2.72 to $3.20. By 2014 a return trip will cost over $11. Public transport patrons are no different from anyone else: they have a look at what they get for their money. If they live in western Brisbane, they are not getting very much for their money. The services are already overcrowded and frequently cannot take waiting passengers. There is a deplorable level of safety at the bus stops, particularly the one at Grandview Road. For years we have fought for improved safety at that bus stop. In Moggill we have no bus priority. Not only do we have one of the slowest and most chaotic roads in Brisbane; no priority is given to people who do the right thing and catch the bus. The bus sits in exactly the same growing traffic jam. In Moggill, one park-and-ride station is under construction although not yet opened, but mostly the area has no park-and-ride stations and there are no planned additional services. There are 140 spaces at the new park-and-ride station, but there will be no extra bus services for the people who park their cars there. It is as likely as not that they will find that the buses are full, anyway. However, those people are well off compared to the 10,000 or so people who live at Mount Crosby, Karana Downs and Karalee, who do not have any bus service at all. Mr Reeves interjected. Dr FLEGG: The member for Mansfield is shouting out like a lunatic. His electorate is serviced by public transport, including busways, but this government has made no commitment to equity in public transport. They are a joke. They want people to get out of their cars and onto public transport, but they give them full buses, no bus lanes, no bus priority, no park-and-rides and if you live at Mount Crosby there are no bus services at all. You are a joke. (Time expired) Coolnwynpin State School Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (9.35 pm): I rise to congratulate one of my local schools on the occasion of a significant anniversary. I refer to the Coolnwynpin State School, which celebrated its 25th birthday in October. Twenty-five years is a long time in the life of a small local primary school. When we think back to what else was happening a quarter of a century ago, in 1984, we might recall that the Australian $1 coin was circulated for the first time and that Advance Australia Fair became our national anthem. The ability of Coolnwynpin State School to provide education and other facilities for local students is an indication of the growth that was beginning to occur in the Redland shire, as it was then known. Today that growth continues to accelerate in the Redland City area. On the first day of school, 74 students attended classes. Today the progressive school has over 480 students and offers much more than the basic curriculum. The principal runs a before school fitness program and the school has always had a very strong focus on sport. Music and the performing arts also play a very important role in the school. There are applied learning classes for advanced students, and the school also offers an outstanding special education unit. The fortnightly Cool Breezes Cafe is a popular coffee spot and provides a great training vehicle for special education students. It is an example of the school’s wonderful ethos and motto: ‘Climb to success’. Over the years outstanding leaders have included foundation principal Barry Smith, longest serving principal Frank Freeman, Lesley Vogan, Matthew Glen and current principal Bill Lester. All except one attended the 25th anniversary celebrations, along with first school captains Norm McNamara and Toni Grevett, now Mrs Thomson. A special token of the 25th anniversary was the school song, written and arranged by one of the school student’s grandparents, Mr Alan Beard, and Ms Kim Durant, of Love you Queensland fame. The song was performed at the anniversary party by a former student. I offer my congratulations to the Coolnwynpin State School, its students, teachers and parents. May the next 25 years be as exciting and rewarding as the last quarter of a century. Bushfire Preparedness Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (9.37 pm): Anyone can make a mistake. Fools will make the same mistake twice, but only idiots continue down a path that proves time and time again that it is a mistake. In this House I have always stated that the worst neighbours any property owner can have are national parks and state forests. I say this because in the country we are very aware of bushfires and we are very aware of how firebreaks should be made. There are three things to consider when making a firebreak: 11 Nov 2009 Adjournment 3335 first, keep it very straight; second, keep it wide enough so people can manoeuvre within it and fight fires that do not jump easily; and, third, keep the damn thing clean. This is not happening in our state forests. I call on the minister to be aware of this and start changing the policy with regard— Ms Jones: You can come and see me any time you like. Mrs PRATT: Instead of yelling out, the minister should listen and hear what damage is done to people, have a bit of nous, listen and correct— Ms JONES: I rise to a point of order. I was not yelling out. I said that the member can come and talk to me any time she wants. My door is always open and she knows that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Pitt): Order! That is not a point of order, Minister. The member for Nanango has the call. Mrs PRATT: This is a huge issue. A couple pictured in the South Burnett Times has paid a very high price for being a neighbour of a national park. Of their 760-acre property, 40 acres were left untouched. They lost $50,000 worth of fencing and many cattle were killed. The cattle they have left will now be left to starve if they are not moved. They have paid an enormous price because the state government does not address this problem. It is not the first time I have brought this issue to the parliament. It will go on. I hope that the minister will address it. I will be talking to her. I will send her some communication about it. It has to be addressed. Hazard reduction needs to be done now before the fire season because it is indeed a very big problem. Ron and Noelene were devastated, as we can all imagine. It was three days before Ron spoke again because of the trauma. He and his wife, Noelene, fought the fire. When they were rung up by the rangers to tell them that they were going to burn off, the place was as dry as chips. Anyone would know that the conditions were totally unsuitable. It was just before a total fire ban was called. It was devastating. I ask the minister to review this policy and to look at having compensation for people like the Trace family who, through no fault of their own, are paying a very high price. Their property will not recover for a long, long time. Other neighbours’ properties have been damaged as well. It is not an isolated case. It does not just happen in the South Burnett. It also happens in the Brisbane Valley. There are 29 state forests in my area. I urge the minister to address this issue.

St Thomas’ Catholic Primary School Ms FARMER (Bulimba—ALP) (9.40 pm): Several weeks ago I was very excited to attend the 80th anniversary celebrations of St Thomas’ Catholic Primary School in Camp Hill. St Thomas’ school is an icon in our local area. It is a school which is highly regarded for its sense of community; its focus on helping students to be the best that they can be; its caring and supportive environment for students, parents and teachers alike; its mutually sympathetic relationship with the St Thomas’ parish; and for the leadership which is provided by its excellent principal, Mr David Cashman, and its P&F, headed up by president Debbie Radford. In fact the P&F is amazing. The fete that it holds each year has a fearsome reputation and is an indication of the excellent organisational skills and sense of focus that the P&F has. I had heard about the P&F long before I became an elected representative. I now recommend to any community organisation in the Bulimba electorate who asks that they talk to St Thomas’ P&F before they even think about the best way to do fundraising. A government member interjected. Ms FARMER: I take that interjection. It is St Thomas’ at Camp Hill. On 25 October, the school held its 80th anniversary celebrations, and what a wonderful celebration it was. A mass was held in St Thomas’ church, overseen by Father Gerard. There were so many families there, in an environment where even the smallest and most curious of children could feel that they were accepted. This is the measure of St Thomas’. At the celebrations, including a barbecue, huge birthday cake and lots of activities, I met many, many families who were enrolling at least their second, if not their third, generation of children at St Thomas’ school. Having had such positive experiences themselves, parents and grandparents consider it a rite of passage that their children or grandchildren are able to benefit from the sense of belonging that characterises St Thomas’. St Thomas’ church at Camp Hill first came into being on 11 February 1923. With the extension of the electric tram from Stones Corner terminus, settlement in the area grew and the need for a parish school became increasingly obvious. The Sisters of the Good Samaritan were travelling from St James Coorparoo each Sunday to teach catechism in the parish. Archbishop Duhig approached the order with an invitation to staff the parish school. They accepted and a curtain was strung across separating the newly built verandah from the main part of the church on 28 January 1929, ready for the school year. 3336 Attendance 11 Nov 2009

In this state, the first St Thomas’ school opened its doors with Sisters Bibiana, Francis and Justin teaching 84 pupils. It was Frank Schlecht who built the first wing of that veranda, and the Schlecht family is now into its fourth generation at the school, having been linked to the school continuously since that time. The school has continued to grow, adding buildings as they were needed. New buildings and the tuckshop in the activities centre were established between 1970 and 1975. As they complete their 80th year, the St Thomas’ school community has 402 children, 44 staff and 251 families. The reputation of the school is such that they have significant waiting lists of families anxious to ensure that their children can benefit. I congratulate them on their journey over the last 80 years and look forward to working with them in the future. Question put—That the House do now adjourn. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 9.43 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