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 Thursday, 12 November 2009

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 3337 Parliament House Events ...... 3337 PETITIONS ...... 3337 TABLED PAPERS ...... 3337 MINISTERIAL PAPERS ...... 3337 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 3338 Water Supply ...... 3338 Executive Council Review ...... 3339 Tabled paper: Queensland government, issues paper, undated, titled ‘Review of matters proceeding to Governor in Council for Approval’...... 3339 Cooktown Orchid, 50th Anniversary ...... 3339 Morley, Mr P ...... 3339 Public Hospitals Performance Report ...... 3340 Tabled paper: Report by Queensland Health titled ‘Quarterly public hospitals performance report— September Quarter 2009’...... 3340 Employment, Far North Queensland; Queensland Competition Authority ...... 3341 Water Supply ...... 3342 Toowoomba Pipeline ...... 3343 Child Safety; Social Housing ...... 3344 Tabled paper: Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian—Annual Report 2008-09...... 3344 Tabled paper: Deaths of Children and Young People—Annual Report 2008-09...... 3344 Tabled paper: Queensland Child Death Case Review Committee—Annual Report 2008-09...... 3344 Crocodiles ...... 3344 Annual Reports ...... 3345 Tabled paper: Department of Justice and Attorney-General—Annual Report 2008-09...... 3345 Tabled paper: Department of Justice and Attorney-General—Financial Report 2008-09...... 3345 Tabled paper: WorkCover Queensland—Annual Report 2008-09...... 3345 Tabled paper: WorkCover Queensland—Statement of Corporate Intent 2009-10...... 3345 Tabled paper: Crime and Misconduct Commission—Annual Report 2008-09...... 3345 Tabled paper: Electoral Commission Queensland—Annual Report 2008-09...... 3345 Tabled paper: The Public Trustee—Annual Report 2008-09...... 3345

J MICKEL N J LAURIE L J OSMOND SPEAKER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER Table of Contents — Thursday, 12 November 2009

TravelSmart ...... 3346 Schoolies Week ...... 3346 Forgan Bridge Project ...... 3347 Australian Training Awards ...... 3347 Local Government Infrastructure Projects ...... 3348 Sugar Industry, Fertiliser ...... 3348 Home and Community Care ...... 3348 MEMBERS’ ETHICS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE ...... 3349 Report ...... 3349 Tabled paper: Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, Report No. 102: Matter of privilege referred by the Speaker on 4 August 2009 relating to an alleged lack of parliamentary authorisation of unforeseen expenditure in 2007-08...... 3349 PARLIAMENTARY CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMITTEE ...... 3349 Report ...... 3349 Tabled paper: Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee, Report No. 81: A report on a review by the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Commissioner of the actions and holdings of the Crime and Misconduct Commission in relation to the investigation of Senior Sergeant Michael Isles...... 3349 SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 3349 Visitors to Public Gallery ...... 3349 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 3350 Traveston Dam ...... 3350 Traveston Dam ...... 3350 Water Supply ...... 3351 Traveston Dam ...... 3351 Sale of Public Assets ...... 3352 Traveston Dam ...... 3353 Tabled paper: Extract from a report dated December 1994 by the Department of Primary Industries titled ‘An Appraisal Study of Water Supply Sources for the Sunshine Coast and the Mary River valley’...... 3353 Sunshine Coast University Hospital ...... 3354 Jobs ...... 3354 Jobs ...... 3355 Traveston Dam ...... 3356 Borumba Dam ...... 3356 Tabled paper: Extract from a report, dated July 1997, by the Department of Natural Resources titled ‘Water Infrastructure Planning and Development Implementation Plan’...... 3357 Environmental Policies ...... 3357 Town Centres, Beautification ...... 3358 Water Supply ...... 3359 Australian Rivers Institute ...... 3359 Bushfire Preparedness ...... 3360 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3361 First Reading ...... 3361 Tabled paper: Environmental Protection and other Acts Amendment Bill 2009...... 3361 Tabled paper: Environmental Protection and other Acts Amendment Bill 2009, explanatory notes...... 3361 Second Reading ...... 3361 BUILDING AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3362 Second Reading ...... 3362 REPORT ...... 3374 Auditor-General ...... 3374 Tabled paper: Auditor-General of Queensland, Report to Parliament No. 8 for 2009, titled ‘Results of audits at 31 October 2009’...... 3374 Tabled paper: Auditor-General of Queensland, Executive Summary for Report to Parliament No. 8 for 2009, titled ‘Results of audits at 31 October 2009’...... 3374 BUILDING AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3374 Second Reading ...... 3374 ORDER OF BUSINESS ...... 3394 BUILDING AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3394 Declared Urgent; Allocation of Time Limit Order ...... 3394 Division: Question put—That the question be put...... 3396 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3396 Division: Question put—That the Leader of the House’s motion be agreed to...... 3396 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3396 Table of Contents — Thursday, 12 November 2009

BUILDING AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3396 Second Reading ...... 3396 Consideration in Detail ...... 3420 Clauses 1 to 4, as read, agreed to...... 3420 Clause 5—...... 3420 Tabled paper: Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, explanatory notes for Mr Gibson’s amendments...... 3420 Division: Question put—That the member for Gympie’s amendment be agreed to...... 3420 Resolved in the negative...... 3420 Non-government amendment (Mr Gibson) negatived...... 3420 Clause 5, as read, agreed to...... 3420 Clauses 6 to 28, as read, agreed to...... 3420 Clause 29—...... 3421 Tabled paper: Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009, Mr Hinchliffe’s amendments...... 3423 Tabled paper: Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009, explanatory notes for Mr Hinchliffe’s amendments...... 3423 Tabled paper: Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009, erratum to explanatory notes...... 3423 Division: Question put—That clauses 29 to 82, the schedule and the minister’s amendments be agreed to...... 3424 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3424 Clauses 29 to 82 and schedule, as amended, agreed to...... 3424 Third Reading ...... 3424 Long Title ...... 3425 SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT ...... 3425 ADJOURNMENT ...... 3425 Beaudesert Electorate, Bat Colonies ...... 3425 Silver Memories ...... 3426 Coral Coast Homes ...... 3426 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 6 November 2009, from Helen Couper, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Misconduct, Crime and Misconduct Commission, to Mr Rob Messenger MP, in relation to a complaint about the Building Services Authority and Coral Coast Homes...... 3426 Pine Rivers United Sports Club ...... 3427 Redlands Electorate ...... 3428 Curlew Park, Sandgate ...... 3428 Darling Downs-Moreton Rabbit Board ...... 3429 Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference, Future Health Care ...... 3429 Hinchinbrook Electorate, Assaults on Police and Ambulance Officers ...... 3430 Social Housing, Comments by Member for Burdekin ...... 3431 ATTENDANCE ...... 3431 12 Nov 2009 Legislative Assembly 3337 THURSDAY, 12 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 STATEMENT

Parliament House Events Mr SPEAKER: I wish to remind the House of two significant events that will be held here at Parliament House during the next sitting week—the final sitting week of the year. On Monday, 23 November at 4 pm, I will launch the Speaker’s Christmas Tree Appeal in the Parliamentary Annexe. I invite all honourable members to attend the launch and urge all members, parliamentary and electorate staff, and members of the public to support this appeal. Donations to the appeal will be directed to two very worthy charities—Project: Love and Care, and ACT for Kids, formerly the Abused Child Trust. I again want to thank Channel 7 for partnering with the Speaker’s Christmas Tree Appeal. The second major event occurring during the next sitting week will be the multifaith service to be held in the Legislative Council chamber on the morning of Thursday, 26 November. Eight of Queensland’s religious leaders will jointly deliver this service of prayer that is themed ‘Caring for our community’. I again extend an invitation to all honourable members to attend this multifaith service that will commence at 8 am prior to our final sitting day for the year.

PETITIONS

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

QantasLink, Fare Increase Mr O’Brien, from 554 petitioners, requesting the House to reverse the cuts in airline services and increases in fares by QantasLink to the Torres Strait and Weipa [1318].

Victoria Point and Coochiemudlo Island, Jetties Mr Dowling, from 202 petitioners, requesting the House to install appropriate disability access in accordance with Australian Standards to the jetties situated at Victoria Point and Coochiemudlo Island [1319]. Petitions received.

TABLED PAPERS

MINISTERIAL PAPER TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial paper was tabled by the Clerk— Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Sport (Mr Reeves)— 1320 Stadiums Queensland—Annual Report 2008-09 MEMBER’S PAPER TABLED BY THE CLERK The following member’s paper was tabled by the Clerk— Member for Cook (Mr O’Brien)— 1321 Non-conforming petition presented by Mr O’Brien regarding the cuts in airline services and increases in fares by QantasLink to the Torres Strait and Weipa

MINISTERIAL PAPERS

The following ministerial papers were tabled— The Premier and Minister for the Arts (Ms Bligh)— 1322 Department of the Premier and Cabinet—Annual Report 2008-09 1323 Public Service Commission—Annual Report 2008-09 1324 Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel—Annual Report 2008-09 1325 Queensland Competition Authority—Annual Report 2008-09 1326 Queensland Integrity Commissioner—Annual Report 2008-09 1327 South Bank Corporation—Annual Report 2008-09 1328 Queensland Art Gallery—Annual Report 2008-09 1329 Library Board of Queensland—Annual Report 2008-09 1330 Queensland Museum—Annual Report 2008-09 1331 Queensland Performing Arts Centre—Annual Report 2008-09 3338 Ministerial Statements 12 Nov 2009

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Water Supply Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.33 am): South- East Queensland is Australia’s fastest growing region and the challenge of that growth demands long- term planning. Our planning for water security has addressed both supply and demand, with the rollout of water tanks and water audits to help people save water in their home. South-East Queenslanders have shown they are world champion water savers, reducing average consumption from 300 litres per person per day pre drought to as low as 135 litres per person per day. We have built major new components of the water grid across the region, and the Traveston Crossing Dam was the next crucial piece of the water grid puzzle in South-East Queensland. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will wait for the House to come to order. Ms BLIGH: In proposing the Traveston Crossing Dam, the government relied upon the most rigorous and comprehensive scientific advice from some of the best minds— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. I call the Premier. Ms BLIGH: In proposing the Traveston Crossing Dam, the government relied upon the most rigorous and comprehensive scientific advice from some of the best minds in the field. Their advice— and all of it has been made public—was that this dam could not only serve as a crucial part of our water supply network but also help address the decline of fragile species in the region. Clearly, the federal environment minister, Peter Garrett, has relied on different scientific advice in reaching the decision he announced yesterday. It is the nature of governments of all persuasions at all levels that we are in the business of making decisions that impact on people’s lives. As we speak, parts of Brisbane’s northside, for example, are awash with bulldozers, backhoes and road headers as part of our massive Airport Link projects. Those projects have required the resumption of more than 200 properties, and many more people right across Queensland face similar circumstances any time a government builds a road, a bridge or a busway. As I would say to anyone whose life is impacted by a major project, I am sorry for the angst and disruption that this inevitably causes. There is no doubt that this has been the case for the people of the Mary Valley. I can advise the House that the government will not be challenging the decision announced by the federal minister yesterday. I can also confirm to the House and the people of the Mary Valley region that we will continue to fund the Community Futures Task Force. It will remain in place in the Mary Valley until at least June next year. Major General Peter Arnison has confirmed that he is willing to continue in his role leading the task force. As well as assisting with initial property buybacks, the task force will work with the community to develop a plan to take the region forward. Water is life. We need it to live, we need it to work and we need it to grow. There is no part of our lives that water does not touch. It is so fundamental to everything we do every day of our lives that people often forget that it is a resource that needs to be collected, processed and distributed. The federal government has made its decision, but that decision will have implications for our water strategy. Our 50-year water strategy shows that on current population projections without the Traveston Crossing Dam we will need new sources of water. The 50-year strategy identifies that new desalination plants will need to be online around 2017. The strategy, after two years of consultation and assessment, identifies that the two most suitable sites for new desalination plants are at Lytton near the Port of Brisbane and on industrial land at Marcoola. This is not a new plan. As I said, we have been working on the 50-year water strategy for almost two years. We released a draft for assessment last March that included assessment of all of these desalination sites. The strategy also identifies that the duplication of the Tugun desalination plant is the next best option after Lytton and Marcoola, and beyond that a site at Bribie Island. The need for those sites, however, will be subject to actual population growth, drought and climate change. The sites will be reserved and it will be up to a future government to decide whether or not to construct them, as they are not needed until 2030 or beyond. This decision has serious implications for water pricing. The decision by the federal minister yesterday inevitably means that the next best source of water will be a more expensive option than a dam. Our government is absolutely committed to providing water security for South-East Queensland and we will release the 50-year water strategy which will outline all of those options. 12 Nov 2009 Ministerial Statements 3339

Executive Council Review Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.39 am): Over the last six months we have been in the business of reforming the public sector in Queensland to simplify government and reduce red tape. In keeping with this theme, the government has decided to conduct a review of the matters which proceed to Executive Council for approval. As honourable members would know, Executive Council exists to advise the Governor in Council—that is, the Governor acting on advice of executive councillors—to give legal effect to many decisions and actions of government. In many cases it is clear that Governor in Council approval is required to give legal effect to the decisions and actions of government such as in the makings of regulations and other subordinate legislation. However, in the interests of streamlining government decision-making processes where possible and appropriate, there may be certain matters which currently proceed to Governor in Council that could be considered solely by another decision-making body such as a responsible minister or the cabinet. I seek leave to table an issues paper prepared by my department which highlights some examples of matters which may no longer require Governor in Council approval. The issues paper has been circulated to all government agencies as well as to the Office of the Governor, the Public Service Commission and the Auditor-General to seek feedback on ways in which we can streamline the Executive Council process while still maintaining a high degree of transparency and accountability in government decision making. I will inform the House of the results of this review upon its completion. Leave granted. Tabled paper: Queensland government, issues paper, undated, titled ‘Review of matters proceeding to Governor in Council for Approval’ [1332]. Cooktown Orchid, 50th Anniversary Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.41 am): Next Thursday marks the 50th anniversary of the date on which the Cooktown orchid was chosen as Queensland’s floral emblem. I thank the member for Cook for supplying me this morning with this very beautiful example of our floral emblem. On 19 November 1959 the Cooktown orchid was proclaimed as our state flower, following a public newspaper poll in which the orchid was reported to have come out thousands of votes ahead of other suggestions. The beautiful native flower was first collected in the 1800s on Mount Adolphus, a small island about 18 kilometres north-east of Cape York. It occurs naturally in North Queensland from the Johnstone River to Iron Range but of course can be found in greenhouses right throughout Queensland. In recent years it has also been exported to New Zealand, the USA, Papua New Guinea and Fiji. This flower is a part of Queensland’s history, and it is fitting that we recognise its significance as we celebrate our state’s 150th birthday. Right across Queensland people are celebrating symbols of our heritage. There are more than 500 Q150 Community Funding activities and events being run by organisations, schools, clubs and local councils. The Q150 steam train has carried more than 20,000 passengers on its five-month tour of the state, travelling 7,500 kilometres from as far north as Cairns, south as Wallangarra and west as Quilpie, Winton and Mount Isa. The celebrations continue right up to Proclamation Day on 10 December, when special ceremonies, a street parade and a huge rock concert will mark the 150th anniversary of the historic reading in Brisbane of the Letters Patent. This is a year for all Queenslanders to celebrate our people, our places and our stories. Morley, Mr P Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.43 am): I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to Peter Morley, who will retire from journalism on 20 November after 48 years of reporting. I am sure that members on both sides of the House will join with me in wishing Mr Morley all the best for the future. I am reliably told by his colleagues that he is retiring to a life of deep-sea cruising and chasing scrub turkeys off his veranda. He has certainly seen and done a lot since he started at the Warwick Daily News in 1962. He started journalism in the days of molten lead typesetting. I know that, like me, Mr Morley holds Warwick dear to his heart. It is no surprise really that Peter Morley ended up as a journalist. His association with newspapers began on a pushbike, delivering papers that his dad, George, wrote for the Daily News. Together, Peter and George managed to record almost 100 years in journalism. Peter worked in faraway places like London and Bermuda but he spent most of his professional life at the Courier-Mail, where he worked for 38 years all up. From 1978 to 1998 he was the senior political reporter for the Courier-Mail. In that time, he reported on government from the turbulent Joh Bjelke-Petersen years right through to the Peter 3340 Ministerial Statements 12 Nov 2009

Beattie era. Some days he was more on the money than others, such as the celebrated occasion on the eve of the 1989 election when he was one of the few to predict it would be won by the then National Party. It is also part of legend that it was Peter who enraged Joh Bjelke-Petersen when he published the full details of Queensland Rail’s plans to electrify the Central Queensland coal rail system. Apparently, a few drinks the night before with a couple of ministers saw him access a couple of documents. From all reports, the then Premier was not a happy man because it was Peter who broke the yarn. Peter’s hard work was recognised at the 2006 Queensland Media Awards when he was awarded the highest accolade of ‘Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism’. He also covered politics for the Sunday Mail. Peter Morley was respected by politicians and peers as an accurate, demanding and sometimes testy reporter. He was known to his colleagues by the nickname ‘Chookie’. Of course, ‘Chookie’ as a nickname came from Bjelke-Petersen, who described his press conferences as ‘feeding the chooks’. Mr Morley was and is a working reporter in the very best sense of the word. He was honoured by the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance for his life’s contribution to media in this state. And he invariably helped young aspiring journalists even when working under pressure in the Press Gallery. I am told by some of the younger journalists who were mentored by him that they like to call him affectionately by a term that I can only refer to in here as ‘Old B’. I know Mr Morley’s respect for the institution of parliament would make him understand why I cannot say the whole word. Those who know him know that he regarded it as a very affectionate term. In fact, he would stop some of the youngsters and say, ‘Show some respect, girly or boyo; it’s Mr Old B to you.’ When I spoke to other politicians and journalists this morning I sought anecdotes about Mr Morley that I wanted to share with people this morning, but unfortunately almost all of them were unrepeatable. I am sure he will be very relieved, for example, that I will not be telling the story about a bus outside Tokyo. Mr Morley was not interested in the trappings of newspaper management. ‘Morley of the Mail’, as he often declared himself on the phone, could not care less. What he did care about was his passion and his fearless pursuit of a story. He is a true professional with an endearing personality, and I know that he will be missed. I wish him well. I believe all members on all sides of the House join with me in wishing him all the best for chasing scrub turkeys off his veranda. Public Hospitals Performance Report Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Health) (9.47 am): I want to express my best wishes to Peter Morley as well. He is, like me, somewhat of an aviation enthusiast. He certainly knows a DC-10 from a D9. Opposition members interjected. Mr LUCAS: He flies aeroplanes; I could fly a D9. Today Queensland Health will publish online the Quarterly public hospitals performance report— September quarter 2009, and I table a copy of it. Tabled paper: Report by Queensland Health titled ‘Quarterly public hospitals performance report—September Quarter 2009’ [1333]. I am pleased to inform the House that Queensland’s public hospitals have coped well with the pressures of human swine flu and the flu season. Queensland’s hospitals continued to improve despite record attendances. The September quarterly report represents the peak flu season in Queensland, and the human swine flu pandemic has placed additional pressure on Queensland hospitals. More than 24,700 patients attended Queensland EDs with flu or flu-like symptoms in the September quarter, with an overall increase of 3.4 per cent of attendances on last year’s flu season. That is 404,589 patients treated in our emergency departments in just three months. Despite this, our emergency department performance continued to improve across four of the five treatment categories. This is largely due to the winter bed management strategy that Queensland Health and our emergency department clinicians implemented together to manage demand during Queensland’s flu season this year. Queensland has the third shortest emergency department wait times in the nation, but we want to be first, not third. That is why the Bligh government is expanding EDs from Torres to the Tweed and why we are working with clinicians at the coalface to implement strategies to manage demand on our hospitals. For the first time, at my request, access block data is also included in the report. What these figures show us is that, despite record admissions and despite a record number of people in ICUs as a result of human swine flu, our state-wide access block figures have improved on last year’s flu season. Of patients requiring admission to a hospital bed from an emergency department, 64 per cent were admitted within eight hours, with the average time being 6.20 hours. This is up from 62 per cent, with an average time of 6.29 hours, during last year’s flu season. This is despite additional pressure placed on our ICUs as a result of the human swine flu pandemic. 12 Nov 2009 Ministerial Statements 3341

These figures include patients who may be in the ED awaiting test results to determine whether they should be admitted. The inclusion of these figures, along with radiation oncology data, is further evidence of the Bligh government’s commitment to open and accountable reporting. Queensland reports more than 1,800 statistics every quarter, more than any other state. So much so that there are talks at a national level about how other states can implement similar reporting standards. This is just another example of the Bligh government leading the way on openness and accountability. Emergency admissions, the first priority of the hospital system, are increasing rapidly and well in excess of population growth. Increases in emergency admissions result in some elective cases being delayed as surgeons must give priority to emergency cases, and both medical and surgical emergencies use beds which might otherwise have been available for elective surgery patients. During the first two months of 2009-10 there was a 1.2 per cent increase in the number of emergency admissions. More than 67,640 patients required emergency admission compared to 66,845 in 2008-09, but Queensland has seen a 20.4 per cent jump in emergency admissions in the past four years. An additional 8,743 patients required emergency admission in July, August and September—a 3.9 per cent increase on the same quarter in 2008 and almost double our population growth. That is more than 230,700 Queenslanders who needed to be admitted to our public hospitals from our emergency departments in just three months. Despite the record number of emergency admissions, Queensland’s busiest hospitals continued to make inroads into elective surgery. The total number of long-wait patients has decreased by 15.3 per cent and an additional 1,095 patients—a 3.4 per cent increase—received their elective surgery compared with the September quarter 2008. This means a record 33,125 people received elective surgery between July and September. This does not mean that we have got it right everywhere and it does not mean that there is not still work to be done. Orthopaedic and urological waits, for example, are still too long due to a worldwide shortage of orthopaedic and urological surgeons. This is something we have to tackle in the future. But the Bligh government’s innovative Surgery Connect program means Queensland continues to have the shortest overall elective surgery wait times in the nation—27 days compared with 34 days. For the first time the report also includes the number of long-wait elective surgery patients at hospitals by category. I specifically wanted people to be able to see how many patients fall into each category in their own community as well as see how their hospital is travelling. This is about being up- front about where our hospitals sit, being able to identify where there is a problem and fixing it. I am particularly pleased to see children’s long waits have decreased by 68.8 per cent compared to the September 2008 quarter. The previous health minister identified children’s long waits for elective surgery as a concern. I am pleased the strategies Queensland Health has put in place to redress this is making inroads. In addition to long waits by hospital and access block data, for the first time radiation oncology waiting lists have been included in the report. I made a commitment in June that I would include this data in quarterly reports. Of the four hospitals that provide these services—the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Princess Alexandra Hospital, the Mater Hospital and Townsville Hospital—three have well and truly met national benchmarks. Emergency treatment, category 1, applies to a small group of people with cancer for whom emergency same-day radiation treatment is required and given within 24 hours. High-priority care patients, category 2, should receive treatment within 10 working days. Compared to the June quarter 2009, there was a decrease from 23 to eight days at Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, a decrease from 10 to five days at the Mater, a decrease from 20 to four days at Princess Alexandra Hospital and a decrease from 19 to 17 days at Townsville Hospital. Planned priority care patients, category 3, should be seen within 20 working days. Compared to the June quarter 2009, there was a decrease from 34 to 16 days at the RBWH, a decrease from 24 to 14 days at the Mater, a decrease from 40 to 14 days at the PA and a decrease from 37 to 27 days at Townsville Hospital. Whilst Townsville is heading in the right direction, there is still more work to be done. Like all quarterly reports, this report is a benchmark that identifies where our strategies are working and where we have to do better. Our commitment to the people of Queensland is that we will use it to do just that. Isn’t it funny that the opposition reported on nothing?

Employment, Far North Queensland; Queensland Competition Authority Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development) (9.53 am): Last week I spent time in Cairns to meet with the region’s business leaders to discuss the current state of the economy. The biggest issue facing Far North Queensland at the moment is unemployment. Opposition members interjected. 3342 Ministerial Statements 12 Nov 2009

Mr SPEAKER: Just wait, Treasurer. I will wait for the House to come to order. There is too much audible conversation. I call the honourable Treasurer. Mr FRASER: The biggest issue facing the Far North at the moment is unemployment—a fact impressed upon the government by the our Cairns MPs who are strong advocates for that region. The unemployment rate has now reached double figures in the Far North. The state government is committed to getting Far North Queenslanders back into work. We have introduced skilling and employment programs in the region to target young and disadvantaged unemployed people in particular. In Cairns I launched two Skilling Queenslanders for Work projects worth over half a million dollars that will provide an opportunity for 100 young job seekers in the region. These projects are aimed at school leavers aged between 15 and 17 who are at high risk of entering the unemployment cycle. The two groups that received the funding to facilitate the programs are the Vocational Partnerships Group which will receive $316,000 to assist 60 young people and ReDeploy ReEmploy which will receive $238,000 to assist a further 40 young people. The Skilling Queenslanders for Work initiative is one of the most important programs we have as we fight rising unemployment. The numbers speak for themselves. In the Cairns region, more than 1,840 people have been assisted since July 2007 through $5.6 million worth of state government Skilling Queenslanders for Work projects. We will continue to work to create job opportunities in the Far North. Of our $18 billion building program, over $1 billion is being spent in the Far North. We are spending more per capita in the Far North than we are in the south-east, and almost twice as much as the national rate. Some of the projects underway include the $446.3 million redevelopment of the Cairns Hospital, renovations to the Cairns Hospital emergency department to provide additional capacity and $42 million for the William McCormack Place project. We are putting in place the infrastructure needed to drive growth in the Far North tourism industry. We are currently funding the cruise ship facility at Cairns port and also progressing a feasibility study for a new Great Walk from the Daintree River to the tip of Cape York. This government is committed to supporting the Far North economy and providing jobs for the residents of the Far North. On another matter, I would also like to advise the House of a new appointment to the Queensland Competition Authority—the economic regulator in this state. This appointment will fill an existing vacancy. Former member for Moggill and minister, Dr David Watson, will serve on the Queensland Competition Authority for a three-year term. Dr Watson’s experience, including as a director of the government owned electricity generator Stanwell, as an MP, as a minister, as a trained accountant and broad experience in the private sector prior to entering public office, will be put to good use on the board of the QCA. This will be an appointment which I am sure will be met with approval from both sides of the House. Water Supply Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade) (9.56 am): Traveston Dam was a critical part of our plans of give 2½ million South- East Queenslanders the water they needed now and into the future. We cannot sit by and take no action. Water is essential to our lives, and that is why we have invested some $9 billion in South East Queensland’s water grid. We have invested in water security for Queensland and we have invested in a number of water supply alternatives to keep our supply secure. Of course yesterday’s decision was disappointing and it will inevitably force water prices up. Without Traveston Crossing Dam we will have to build four new desalination plants to supply water to South-East Queensland over the next 50 years. Mr Dickson: Release the document. Mr ROBERTSON: The first one will have to come online by 2017 to fill the 200 megalitre per day gap left by Traveston. I take the interjection from the member for Dickson. Mr Dickson: Member for Buderim. Get it right! Mr ROBERTSON: Buderim. I invite him to visit— Mr Dickson: Just like the desal; you can’t get that right either, or the Traveston Dam. Mr ROBERTSON: He asked me to release the documents. I invite him to visit the Queensland Water Commission’s website where all the documents have been publicly available for over a year. The first desalination plant will have to come on line by 2017— Mr Dickson: All of the confidential documents. Mr ROBERTSON: Please interject again at any time—to fill the 200 megalitre per day gap left by Traveston Dam. We all know, and there is no disagreement, that desalination plants are far more costly than dams. Studies for Traveston Crossing Dam showed that a desalination plant would be between $210 million and $807 million more expensive over the life of the project depending on the impact of the carbon price. 12 Nov 2009 Ministerial Statements 3343

That is why today I will be writing to Senator Penny Wong and calling on the Australian government to contribute to the extra cost of these desalination plants. It is not fair for South-East Queenslander to pay for yesterday’s decision with more water price rises. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gregory. I called for order three times. I now warn you under the new standing order 253A. I call the honourable minister. Mr ROBERTSON: The Bligh government will have to lock in desalination sites at Marcoola on the Sunshine Coast and Lytton in Brisbane. Further investigations will determine whether Marcoola or Lytton will be constructed first and at what size. That will depend on the outcomes of social, environmental and financial considerations coupled with future water supply requirements. To ensure the water security of South-East Queensland, land will also be set aside as reserve options for a desalination plant at Bribie Island and to duplicate Tugun. On current modelling, both Bribie and the duplication of Tugun would not be required until 2030. Bribie Island would be a long way away. The Marcoola site is adjacent to the proposed new runway at the Sunshine Coast Airport and advice is that the two can co-exist. Mr Dickson interjected. Mr ROBERTSON: I take the interjection from the member for Buderim and refer him to the Queensland Water Commission website, where these reports have been available for over a year. Ms Simpson: It clearly shows you have to do more studies and you haven’t done them, have you? Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. Mr ROBERTSON: Tugun is located next to the Coolangatta Airport about 140 metres from the tarmac and there are no interference issues. At Marcoola the desalination facility would be located even further away from the tarmac and the Lytton site should be available for development in the near future. The other option that has been talked about a lot, particularly by members opposite, is the raising of Borumba Dam. I would remind members that, in light of yesterday’s decision, Borumba Dam, located as it is on Yabba Creek, a tributary of the Mary River, will have to undergo the same analysis under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act as has Traveston. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr ROBERTSON: The same assessment of the possible impacts of a raising and downstream weir would require the same analysis of rare and threatened species as was required by Traveston Dam. I think all members need to reflect on that before they put that up as some panacea to yesterday’s decision. This is something that I am sure we will hear more about as the day goes on. Toowoomba Pipeline Hon. SJ HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) (10.01 am): I am pleased to announce that the final piece of the 38-kilometre Toowoomba pipeline has been connected this morning—almost two months ahead of schedule. All 3,325 pipes in the 38-kilometre pipeline between Wivenhoe Dam and Toowoomba’s Lake Cressbrook are now in place. In the past 20 years there has been a measurable decline in the average rainfall over the region’s catchment areas. This continued lack of reliable rainfall has placed the existing water supply system under significant pressure. Despite implementing and maintaining level 5 water restrictions since September 2006 and an increased reliance upon underground water sources, the combined level of Toowoomba’s three dams continues to fall. At the beginning of November, the total available supply was only 8.9 per cent. The water supply pipeline connecting the dams remains on track to be completed by the end of January. Once complete, this system will bring the state’s largest inland city out of drought and ensure long-term water security by providing enough water to cater for demand until 2042. With the capacity to transfer 14,200 megalitres of water per annum at a speed of 491 litres per second, the new pipeline will fast enhance the seriously depleted reservoir supplies. In addition, the pump station at Wivenhoe is 70 per cent finished, with the overall project completion date of January 2010 due to be achieved. It is a project we are proud of. 3344 Ministerial Statements 12 Nov 2009

I again want to thank the Toowoomba Pipeline Alliance, LinkWater Projects and the many local businesses that were involved in building the pipeline on a job well done, and I know the member for Toowoomba North would join me in extending that expression of appreciation. Clearly, we are disappointed about the decision on the Traveston Crossing Dam, but this shows that we are getting on with the job of delivering water security for the whole region.

Child Safety; Social Housing

Hon. KL STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (Minister for Community Services and Housing and Minister for Women) (10.04 am): Children are our most precious resource. Their safety must be paramount at all times—every hour of every day of the year. That is one of the reasons why we established a Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian—to act independently and to protect and safeguard the interests of our children. Today, as minister responsible for the Children’s Commission, I table a number of annual reports.

Tabled paper: Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian—Annual Report 2008-09 [1334].

Tabled paper: Deaths of Children and Young People—Annual Report 2008-09 [1335].

Tabled paper: Queensland Child Death Case Review Committee—Annual Report 2008-09 [1336]. One statistic stands out above all others—519. That is the number of registered child deaths across Queensland last year. Many of those deaths would have been largely preventable. Around 20 per cent were traffic accidents, and most of them in regional areas—no helmets, no protective gear. Again, they were largely preventable accidents. It presents parents, carers and the whole community with 519 important reasons why they and why we all must continue to do everything possible to keep children safe from harm. Nothing can be more important than that. The report found that 76 per cent of the deaths of young people were due to diseases, infections and sickness. The report also reveals that Indigenous children died at 2½ times the rate of non- Indigenous children. We all have to work hard at turning those statistics around. The safety of our children is everyone’s responsibility. As a government we are working hard to close the gap in inequities in health, housing and the economic status of Indigenous communities, and there is lots more work to be done. I am working shoulder to shoulder with Indigenous councils to deliver a massive public housing building program that will lead to jobs and kick-start local economies. It is about delivering jobs, delivering housing and delivering a better deal for Indigenous people in remote communities. It is hard to focus on getting a job, putting food on the table and living a healthy life if you do not have a safe and secure roof over your head. That is one important reason why our public housing rollout is so important.

Crocodiles

Hon. KJ JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability) (10.06 am): We are now in crocodile season and we can expect to see more croc sightings reported over the coming months. Of course these sightings are not unusual, as a large part of Queensland is natural crocodile habitat. It is, however, important to keep track of the crocodile population and whether their movements and distribution are changing in any way. That is why today I inform the House that the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service is currently undertaking the first major survey of estuarine crocodiles in Queensland. This is a massive exercise taking in more than 40 river systems from the Burdekin River catchment in the south to the Gulf of Carpentaria and Cape York in the north. Seven major rivers and creeks between Cape Melville and Ayr have already been surveyed, and two regions from Cooktown to Ayr and from Ayr to Gladstone are about to get underway. The survey will continue until the end of the wet season in March and April and will provide the baseline data we need on population and distribution so that crocodile numbers can be accurately monitored from now on. We obviously cannot count all of the crocodiles in Queensland, but this survey will give us a clear picture of how our crocs are doing in all areas of croc country. It will be followed by regular surveys every three years to keep a close watch on crocodile populations so that future management plans are based on the best available evidence. It must always be remembered that these are areas in which we need to co-exist with crocodiles, and this brings with it a number of precautions that need to be taken. Most of these are pretty obvious and include never feeding crocodiles and never entering waterways where they may live, especially at night. A full list of Crocwise recommendations is available on the Department of Environment and Resource Management website. Of course, if anyone sees a crocodile in a populated area, we ask them to report it and to call 1300130372. 12 Nov 2009 Ministerial Statements 3345

Annual Reports Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (10.09 am): Mr Speaker, I lay on the table of the House the following annual reports: the Department of Justice and Attorney-General Annual Report 2008-09— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Minister, resume your seat. I will wait for the House to come to order. I found it impossible to hear what you were saying. Mr DICK: I am laying on the table of the House the Department of Justice and Attorney-General Annual Report 2008-09— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Minister, resume your seat. I will wait again for the House to come to order. Mr DICK:—the Crime and Misconduct Commission Annual Report 2008-09, the Electoral Commission Queensland Annual Report 2008-09, the Public Trustee Annual Report 2008-09, and the WorkCover Queensland Annual Report 2008-09, including the WorkCover Statement of Corporate Intent. Tabled paper: Department of Justice and Attorney-General—Annual Report 2008-09 [1337]. Tabled paper: Department of Justice and Attorney-General—Financial Report 2008-09 [1338]. Tabled paper: WorkCover Queensland—Annual Report 2008-09 [1339]. Tabled paper: WorkCover Queensland—Statement of Corporate Intent 2009-10 [1340]. Tabled paper: Crime and Misconduct Commission—Annual Report 2008-09 [1341]. Tabled paper: Electoral Commission Queensland—Annual Report 2008-09 [1342]. Tabled paper: The Public Trustee—Annual Report 2008-09 [1343]. The tabling of these five reports follows my tabling yesterday of four other annual reports. Combined, they represent about half the total number of annual reports due to be tabled from my portfolio this month. I would like to point out some of the main points raised in some of these reports. Firstly, I would refer members to the annual report for the Department of Justice and Attorney-General. Queensland’s courts continue to achieve impressive clearance rates in the criminal and civil jurisdictions, with the report showing combined clearance rates of more than 100 per cent. The annual report also outlines the success of our e-trials pilot scheme, which has been lauded by court officials in Australia and overseas and could increase efficiency by up to 20 per cent. Next, I would like to draw members’ attention to the CMC annual report. The CMC has again proved to be a powerful agent in protecting Queenslanders from crime and for promoting a trustworthy public sector. In particular, the proceeds of crime team restrained property valued at more than $24 million, forfeited property valued at $3.304 million and obtained two proceeds assessment orders totalling $1.7 million. Finally, I would like to make mention of WorkCover Queensland’s annual report. Queensland has, and continues to have, the most stable workers compensation scheme in the nation. Unfortunately, like many organisations across the world over the past year, WorkCover Queensland’s revenue has suffered a massive hit from the global financial crisis, with the report outlining an operating deficit of $567 million in 2008-09. The negative investment returns brought about by the GFC were the main reason for this loss, along with higher claims costs and increased provisions for outstanding claims liability. While this result presents challenges for the WorkCover board and the government, I want to reassure the House that our workers compensation scheme is both safe and solvent and continues to cover its liabilities. Our premiums are the lowest in Australia and we have a funding ratio of 127 per cent—well above the legislated level of 100 per cent. Furthermore, our position compares very favourably with other jurisdictions, which have also been affected by the GFC. For example, Victoria’s workers compensation scheme has a ratio of 97 per cent and has posted a $1.2 billion deficit for 2008- 09, South Australia’s unfunded liabilities have grown to $1.059 billion and New South Wales has reported a deficit of $1.77 billion for the first half of the 2008-09 financial year with a funding ratio of 87 per cent. To ensure that WorkCover continues to remain fully funded, the WorkCover board is investigating options to protect the scheme’s financial position. A review is currently underway and the government will consider the board’s recommendations once they are received. We have the most robust workers compensation scheme in Australia and we are determined to maintain this status. We acknowledge, however, that down the track we may need to make some important decisions to ensure that we continue to have a scheme that provides the necessary support to injured Queensland workers. At the end of the day, that is what it is all about. 3346 Ministerial Statements 12 Nov 2009

TravelSmart Hon. RG NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (Minister for Transport) (10.12 am): The Bligh government is getting on with the job of addressing congestion and boosting sustainable travel in South-East Queensland as part of our healthy and green Q2 targets. Travel demand management is a key part of a modern, sustainable transport system. For that reason, the Bligh government is rolling out a proven program that uses direct engagement and community awareness and education as a means of increasing sustainable transport practices. The Brisbane north TravelSmart project concluded in 2006 and delivered a nine per cent increase in walking, a 58 per cent increase in cycling and a 22 per cent increase in public transport usage. The project reduced 114 million kilometres from private car travel, equating to a 13 per cent reduction in vehicle kilometres travelled in private cars—an extraordinary result. The Bligh government is now in the process of extending the TravelSmart initiative to households throughout Brisbane’s south and west as well as the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast. TravelSmart Communities projects are right now working with householders to reduce reliance on cars and encourage people to use healthier, more environmentally friendly forms of travel such as public transport, walking, cycling and car pooling. In recent months, 49,000 residents living in the targeted areas of Brisbane’s southern and western suburbs have already received a letter of invitation to be part of the TravelSmart program. We are following up with a phone call, a service sheet and the delivery of a tailored information pack that is aimed at assisting residents with their travel behaviour change. So far more than 8,000 TravelSmart information packs have been delivered and early results have indicated 34 per cent of residents contacted are interested in participating in the TravelSmart program. In early 2010, the invitation to participate in TravelSmart will be extended to residents of Carindale, Mansfield, Wishart, Upper Mount Gravatt, Mount Gravatt East, Holland Park West and Greenslopes. Mr Reeves: That sounds like my electorate. Ms NOLAN: It does sound a lot like the minister’s electorate. Other suburbs will follow later in the year. I encourage residents in these areas to participate in the program by choosing alternative travel options to their car. Participants benefit by leading a healthier, happier lifestyle and the community benefits because there are fewer vehicles on the road, meaning less congestion and fewer harmful exhaust emissions. The Bligh government’s TravelSmart program is assisting us reach our green and healthy targets as we head toward Q2.

Schoolies Week Hon. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading) (10.13 am): Year 12 students all over Queensland will be finishing high school next week, and I congratulate them on this amazing milestone. I would, however, like to plead with these students and their parents to be responsible when it comes to the supply and consumption of alcohol. There will be a wide range of Queensland government, council and industry led entertainment programs that will provide an excellent opportunity to celebrate without alcohol. It is of great concern to the Bligh government that 67 per cent of the teenagers who are assaulted or abused are under the influence of alcohol. It would be grossly negligent for us not to take a tough stance on this issue in order to protect young Queenslanders. OLGR is currently running television and print advertisements—the Don’t Kid Yourself advertisement—in the lead-up to schoolies to remind parents of the dangers of providing under-age teens with alcohol. The campaign was highly successful last year, with a noticeable drop in the number of intoxicated school leavers wandering the streets at Gold Coast schoolies. As a government and as a community, we are currently dealing with a dangerous drinking culture that has emerged in our society. I encourage parents not to promote this culture and to make a stand by not breaking the law by supplying alcohol to their children. Unfortunately, there are still some parents who believe that it is okay to supply their under-age children with alcohol during schoolies. These parents face an $8,000 fine. Police and Liquor Licensing officers will also be out in force at this year’s schoolies celebrations looking for under-age drinking and the irresponsible supply of alcohol to minors by parents. Between 20 November and 29 November, compliance officers from the Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation will visit schoolies hot spots around the state. They will be checking venues to see if they have responsible service of alcohol practices and appropriate security measures to check ID and to monitor crowds. They will also be watching out for drinking in public places and the unlawful supply of alcohol to our minors. This government will not tolerate under-age drinking and the physical and emotional harm that often comes with it. 12 Nov 2009 Ministerial Statements 3347

Forgan Bridge Project Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads) (10.17 am): I have good news for the people of Mackay. I am pleased to announce that piling works for stage 1 of the $148 million Forgan Bridge replacement and duplication project in Mackay are about to completed. The last pile for stage 1 is being poured this morning, completing all 56 piles for this initial stage. This new four-lane bridge will reduce congestion for commuters by providing additional cross-river capacity while also improving the safety and efficiency of the local road network. Some delays in construction of the bridge were experienced earlier this year with piling difficulties and the discovery of the historic shipwreck the Brinawarr. So it is wonderful to see how far the project has come and how close this stage is to completion for this new piece of infrastructure. The work remaining for stage 1 includes the construction of the remaining two headstocks, the placing of the final four spans of deck units, the completion of the service corridor/walkway and pavement works. Once stage 1 is completed in April next year, traffic will be diverted on to the new structure which will allow work to begin on the second stage of construction. Stage 2 will include the demolition of the existing Forgan Bridge and the construction of the remaining two lanes. Before Christmas we will also see traffic diverted onto the completed stage 1 of Barnes Creek Bridge and approaches. The finishing touches, such as the installation of bridge railing and asphalt works, will be undertaken over the next few weeks, with traffic to be diverted onto the new section in early December. Work on the Barnes Creek Bridge and its approaches, including the Kooyong intersection and the Joint Levee Road are on track to be completed in August next year, with works on Forgan Bridge expected to be completed by mid-2011. The project has been a welcome boost to the Mackay economy, with approximately 430 direct and indirect jobs protected over the life of this project. I thank everyone involved for their hard work in reaching these milestones on that site, where some difficult engineering problems were encountered. I also thank my colleagues the members for Mackay and Whitsunday, who have been vocal advocates of this vital project.

Australian Training Awards Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training) (10.19 am): On 19 November I will be attending the Australian Training Awards in Canberra. I am pleased to tell the House that I will be supporting eight Queensland finalists as they vie for national honours. The Australian Training Awards are this country’s peak national awards for vocational education and training. They recognise innovation and excellence in the nation’s training sector. The finals are the culmination of state and territory awards with winners from each state and territory competing. The Bligh government has a strong focus on skilling Queenslanders. We know that access to quality training in a broad range of areas is critical. We want to make sure that young people have the skills they need to find employment. Our investment in the training sector is part of our commitment to creating and supporting Queensland jobs. We are starting early through programs such as school based apprenticeships and traineeships. Queensland has one of the best SAT programs in the country. Priyanka Luecke knows just how good it is. She has been nominated as Stella Axarlis Australian School-based Apprentice of the Year. Priyanka has completed a Certificate III in business and hopes to work for the United Nations in finance and international business relations. She is Balmoral State High School’s 2009 school captain. Congratulations to her and Balmoral State High School, an excellent state school. She has completed her traineeship with an accountant and has strengthened her industry knowledge about superannuation and the stock market. It is a great example of how these programs can give students a head start in their chosen careers. We want to give all students clear pathways to jobs once they leave school. Whether that means attending university, undertaking an apprenticeship or traineeship or going straight into the workforce. It is something that we are strongly committed to. We have our Q2 target of having three out of every four Queenslanders with a trade, training or tertiary qualifications by 2020. Our showing in this year’s Australian Training Awards shows that we are on our way. Queensland finalists are: Craig Folker, the Queensland finalist for Australian Apprentice of the Year; Michael Pope, finalist for Australian Apprentice (Trainee) of the Year; Ariella Anderson for Vocational Student of the Year; Vincent Schrieber for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Student of the Year; Gilkatho Pty Ltd for the Prime Minister’s Small Business of the Year award; Queensland Alumina Ltd for Employer of the Year; and Blue Dog Training for Small Training Provider of the Year. These fine candidates are great examples of how Queenslanders are working extremely hard to keep their skills at the cutting edge. Being recognised at a national level is a tremendous acknowledgment of those efforts. I know that all members will join me in wishing our Queensland finalists at the Australian Training Awards all the very best. 3348 Ministerial Statements 12 Nov 2009

Local Government Infrastructure Projects Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships) (10.22 am): The Bligh government’s record $18 billion building program is protecting 127,000 jobs across Queensland. It is helping us weather the fallout from the global financial crisis and it is ensuring that our state has the infrastructure to keep pace with our growing population. For councils this translates to an investment in local government in the order of $344 million. For Townsville in particular, this is supporting projects such as upgrading wastewater treatment plants at Mount St John and Condon, along with decommissioning Deeragun and Mount Low plants. The Bligh government is providing $66.76 million towards this $189 million project. I am pleased to say the first payment of $6.6 million has already been made to Townsville City Council. The work at Mount St John has started, while works at Condon are scheduled to get underway next year. The decommissioning of Deeragun and Mount Low is expected in the second half of 2011. These upgrades will not only ensure Townsville has state-of-the-art wastewater infrastructure capable of meeting the demands of future growth but also ensure council complies with tough environmental legislation that is protecting the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Over the next two years alone, the Bligh government is providing $92.5 million to Townsville City Council to help deliver essential infrastructure, along with flood mitigation projects and upgrades to community and environmental infrastructure projects, all of which will help ensure Townsville remains a great place to live and raise a family. Projects include upgrades to the Townsville and Thuringowa water supply, with a total of $33.29 million in funding; the $18.9 million redevelopment of Flinders Street Mall; and the $2.5 million upgrade to the Ross River Parkway. Challenges are still ahead of us, but the Bligh government is committed to our building and investment program which is keeping Queenslanders working and keeping our state on track. The $344 million investment in local communities across Queensland is supporting jobs. It is also a timely reminder that we live in a huge, decentralised state and our responsibilities as a government are to build the future for all our regional, rural and remote communities the length and breadth of Queensland.

Sugar Industry, Fertiliser Hon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Rural and Regional Queensland) (10.25 am): Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries researchers have received more promising results from trials to grow profitable sugar cane without artificial fertiliser. This is a win for farmers because it reduces costs and a win for the environment because it reduces the risk of fertiliser run-off. The trials were conducted on two farms in the Aloomba district near Gordonvale and compared three applications: mill mud, ash and legumes only; mill mud, ash and legumes with artificial fertiliser; and mill mud, ash and legumes with artificial fertiliser and top dressing. Crops grown without any artificial fertiliser produced 114 tonnes of sugar cane to the hectare and 17.6 tonnes of sugar with a sugar content of 15.48 per cent. Crops grown with artificial fertiliser produced 121 tonnes of sugar cane per hectare and 17.8 tonnes of sugar with a sugar content of 14.96 per cent. Crops grown with fertiliser and top dressing produced 121 tonnes of sugar cane per hectare, 18.1 tonnes of sugar and a sugar content of 15.02 per cent. The trial crops with no artificial fertiliser were more profitable. I am certain producers will be keen to save on fertiliser costs providing it does not compromise sugar production or quality. Mill mud, ash and legumes provide a wider range of nutrients that break down more slowly into the soil. The slow release of nutrients means the planted cane is able to use it as it is released, there will be less surplus in the soil and less potential for run-off into waterways. Mill mud is rich in phosphorus while ash is high in potassium. Legumes use nitrogen from the air and a fully grown crop can contain 100 to 300 kilograms of nitrogen per hectare depending on the legume species and the size of the crop. The savings will mean more profit for producers and less chance of run-off winding up in the Great Barrier Reef. These trials are an example of the Bligh government’s desire to create sustainable and profitable farming practices to protect the environment.

Home and Community Care Hon. A PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Disability Services and Multicultural Affairs) (10.27 am): Last Thursday I had the pleasure of visiting the Balmoral Uniting Community Care Centre with the member for Bulimba. It was an opportunity to share morning tea with volunteers and meet with some of the people who benefit from the excellent care and services the centre provides. For more than three decades, the Balmoral Uniting Community Care Centre has served as a vital centre for the local senior community. Thanks to a new $55,548 funding boost from the Queensland and Commonwealth governments the centre can now provide additional home support for up to 120 people. 12 Nov 2009 Speaker’s Statement 3349

Last week I also attended, along with the member for Woodridge, the 10th anniversary of the founding of the Islamic Women’s Association in Brisbane. This association has so far received around $900,000 from state and federal governments to support Queenslanders of all backgrounds to live independently in their homes. I am pleased to announce that there is even more good news for Queensland: an extra $36 million to fund other organisations like these across the state which are helping people to live independently for longer. Together with the Commonwealth, Queensland is investing $429 million this year to fund the Home and Community Care Program. This program delivers affordable and accessible care to help meet the individual needs of older people and their carers. It helps people to live independently in their own homes for longer and avoid entering residential care prematurely. We want to ensure Queenslanders get the support they need to live rich and rewarding lives. That is why we will continue to invest in better care and support for Queenslanders who need help to keep living independently in their own homes.

MEMBERS’ ETHICS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE

Report Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (10.29 am): I table report No. 102 of the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee entitled Matter of privilege referred by the Speaker on 4 August 2009 relating to an alleged lack of parliamentary authorisation of unforeseen expenditure incurred in 2007-08. I commend the report and the committee’s recommendation to the House. Tabled paper: Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, Report No. 102: Matter of privilege referred by the Speaker on 4 August 2009 relating to an alleged lack of parliamentary authorisation of unforeseen expenditure in 2007-08 [1344].

PARLIAMENTARY CRIME AND MISCONDUCT COMMITTEE

Report Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (10.29 am): I lay upon the table of the House a report of the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee which attaches a report by the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Commissioner, Mr Alan MacSporran SC. Mr MacSporran’s report reviews the actions and holdings of the Crime and Misconduct Commission in relation to the investigation of Senior Sergeant Michael Isles. I commend the report to the House. Tabled paper: Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee, Report No. 81: A report on a review by the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Commissioner of the actions and holdings of the Crime and Misconduct Commission in relation to the investigation of Senior Sergeant Michael Isles [1345]. At this stage I think it is timely to mention that the term of the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Commissioner, Mr Alan MacSporran, expires during December. A number of members of this House have served on the PCMC and, along with the current committee, have benefited from his assistance. After five years he will retire and is not seeking reappointment, which is not available under the act in any event. I would like to commend to everyone our thanks to Mr MacSporran for his actions and support of the parliament, the committee and the people of Queensland.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Visitors to Public Gallery Mr SPEAKER: Today in parliament we will welcome children and teachers from the Bardon State School in the electorate of Mount Coot-tha, the Tingalpa State School in the electorate of Chatsworth and the Elanora State School in the electorate of Currumbin. We know that members of the public like to tune in to parliament via the internet. I am told that one avid listener is Peter Morley. I am sure we would like to commend Peter for his listening but also wish him well for his retirement. My guest in the gallery today is the mother of the member for Redlands, Mrs Evelyn Dowling, who is celebrating a very significant birthday this week. I extend my birthday greetings to her. I might add that it is reassuring to know that if the member for Redlands gives me any trouble today I have his mum to back me up. If I send a note up, Mrs Dowling, I know that you will back me up 100 per cent. I would also like in a special way to welcome my niece from Canberra, Dr Dominique Allen, who is with us as well. Question time will cease today at 11.32 am. 3350 Questions Without Notice 12 Nov 2009

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Traveston Dam Mr LANGBROEK (10.32 am): My first question without notice is to the Premier. When it came to Traveston Crossing Dam, is it not true that the Premier’s federal Labor colleagues just could not back the Premier’s dishonesty anymore? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. As I outlined yesterday and again this morning, of course I am disappointed by the decision of the federal environment minister. However, I do accept that he has made that decision on the basis of scientific advice that he has accepted that is contrary to the scientific advice that the government relied upon. I have put all of the scientific advice relied upon by the Queensland government into the public arena. I do not believe there has ever been any major project of any description ever built in Queensland that has had more public documentation, has had a more comprehensive environmental assessment and has put more information and more documents into the public arena—not only for those people who are personally affected by it so they could understand every part of the decisions but also for any member of the public. So people did not have to be personally affected. They could just go onto websites for information. Also, not only my government but also my predecessor, Peter Beattie, went to two elections promising that this was part of our water strategy. So we could not give a more open and transparent intention of the government’s water plan. When it comes to the science, I draw to the attention of the House some of the material that was provided to the federal government. The first is from Professor Gordon Grigg. He is a world-recognised expert in the lungfish and he is from the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Queensland. His letter is interesting. It states— As you are aware, my initial reaction to the proposed project at Traveston was that it would further impact on an already deteriorating catchment environment. When asked if I would be willing to act as an adviser to QWI as it developed mitigation strategies, and as I responded to reviews of various documentation in the EIS, I realised that the considerable mitigation measures that were being proposed ... had the strong likelihood of improving the situation for lungfish and, indeed, for all of the four nationally listed species ......

I have long been concerned about the future of lungfish and have made that concern plain in several forums. It is my opinion that, if the mitigation measures proposed by QWI as part of the construction ... Queensland Lungfish as well as the other three species should end up with their security enhanced, not compromised. I draw that to the attention of the House for one simple reason: to show that the government relied upon the best available science from world experts who are recognised in their field. I also recognise that the science on this issue is divided and that the federal minister relied upon other science. I think any suggestion that the science on this is settled is wrong, but this was based on rigorous scientific assessment. Traveston Dam Mr LANGBROEK: My second question without notice is also to the Premier. I refer to Traveston Dam and the shattered lives and the economic ruin, and I ask: will the Premier now say sorry to the people of the Mary Valley face to face? Ms BLIGH: I have indicated on a number of occasions that following the federal decision, whichever way it went, I would be visiting the Mary Valley, and I intend to do that. I have also indicated this morning in my statement to the House that I understand the sort of disruption and pain that any building project that any government embarks upon causes, and the disruption, dislocation and concern in relation to this project was more pronounced than in many other projects. That is why the government established a Community Futures Task Force. It is why we have worked with the community over three years. It is why we have put in place counselling and it is why we put in place what I believe were very reasonable but generous arrangements for those people who chose to voluntarily— Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Stop the clock. I will wait for the House to come to order. Ms BLIGH: I have indicated this morning that Major General Peter Arnison, a very well-respected former Governor of Queensland, who I believe has played a very productive role in very difficult circumstances— Mr Messenger: Don’t try and hide behind him. He’s a good man. Ms BLIGH: I repeat that the very well-respected Major General Peter Arnison has agreed that he will continue in his role for at least another six months so that he can work with QWI and the people of the Mary Valley to put in place and to facilitate the discussions around the land management issues, particularly with those people who are looking to negotiate a buyback of their properties. But he will go 12 Nov 2009 Questions Without Notice 3351 further than that; he will also work with the community, as he has done I believe in a very decent way for the last two years, to develop a plan for the future of the valley. I believe that is a project that is in very good hands. I would hope that people on both sides of this House recognise that Major General Peter Arnison is someone who is very genuine in his care for the people of this valley. I think he is the right person to lead that effort. The government’s view on this is clear: we have an obligation to supply water for the south-east corner of our state. We will meet that obligation. I accept that there are consequences of the decision that was made yesterday. One of the consequences is the need to work with the people in the Mary Valley, and that will occur. Mr Hobbs: Say sorry? Ms BLIGH: I said sorry this morning. Water Supply Mrs SULLIVAN: My question without notice is to the Premier and Minister for the Arts. Although Bribie Island is well down the list of proposed sites for a potential future desalination plant, can the Premier advise the House of what time frames exist for reserving land for such a project? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for her question. I understand that this is an issue that her constituents will have a lot of interest in, as indeed will the constituents of the Deputy Premier in Lytton, the constituents in Marcoola and of course the people in Tugun. Let me be very clear: the consequence of the decision by the federal minister yesterday is that we will need to find another major source of water by 2017. The 50-year water strategy that identified 10 possible sites and has been involved in a public consultation and assessment process over the last two years has identified that the two best sites for the next two desalination plants that will be needed by 2017 are at Lytton and Marcoola. Why? I think it is pretty obvious. We have a desalination supply on the Gold Coast for the southern end of the south- east corner, one in Lytton for the central Brisbane area and one in Marcoola for the northern Sunshine Coast area. And guess what? They are close to salt water. That is a prerequisite. So they are near salt water, they are on industrial sites, they are not on residential properties or in bushland and they are the best sites to take forward as the next two off the rank. But we are in the business of planning for 50 years. That is why we are saying that we need as a government to put aside land at Tugun and on Bribie Island so that a government in 2030 will look at their water needs and, if that government believes it needs more desalination plants, there will be land available for that decision. That is the kind of planning that nobody did in 1970. That is the kind of planning that nobody did in 1980. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seat. I will wait for the House to come to order. Ms BLIGH: We are doing the kind of planning for water that nobody did in 1970, that nobody did in 1980— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just resume your seat, Premier. I will wait again for the House to come to order. Ms BLIGH:—so that a future government will have options. But I think we also need to think about what the technology will be like in 21 years time. Neither the Tugun nor Bribie plants will be needed on current population projections for at least another 21 years. None of us knows what the technology will be like then. Twenty-one years ago, mobile phones were bricks with speakers. We do not know what the technology will be like, but what we do know is that it is very unlikely that desalination plants will be bigger than they are now. In fact, the evolution of technology is likely to refine them and make them smaller. So it will be two decades before any government will have to make this decision, but if it does confront a future government, if the population does require it, that government in two decades time, whoever it is, will have that land set aside. That is good planning. Traveston Dam Mr SPRINGBORG: My question without notice is to the Premier. I refer to the Mary Valley—a whole community torn apart, miscarriages, heart attacks, economic ruin, generations of families forced from their homes— Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seat. Both sides of the House will come to order. I say to the honourable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that that is a lengthy preamble. Please come to your question. 3352 Questions Without Notice 12 Nov 2009

Mr SPRINGBORG: Mr Speaker, I will read the question again. My question without notice is to the Premier. I refer to the Mary Valley— Mr SPEAKER: I would ask you to come to the question please. Mr SPRINGBORG: It is a whole community, as I said, which has been torn apart in those circumstances. I ask: what real assistance will the Premier provide to rebuild the lives of Mary Valley residents devastated by her government’s political stunt? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. As I have already outlined to the House, I accept that whenever a government takes on board a major building project it often involves the disruption of people’s lives. There are schools that have required resumptions, there are hospitals that have required resumptions—roads, bridges, et cetera. I also accept— Mr Horan interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Toowoomba South! Ms BLIGH: I also accept that the scale of the community effect in relation to the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam sets it apart from other projects and requires, I think, a special approach from government. That is why over the last 2½ years we have put in place resources and assistance to work with the community, and that is why we will continue with that over the next six months at least. It may go beyond that; I accept that. We will need to see how the community works on the plan over the next six months and how it rolls out. I am very pleased that Major General Peter Arnison has agreed to continue in that role. I think it is a role that requires someone who is independent— Mr Springborg: A humanitarian disaster. Ms BLIGH: It is very disappointing to see members of the opposition attack Major General Arnison like that. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Premier, resume your seat. I will wait again. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Warrego will withdraw that term. It is unparliamentary. Mr Hobbs: Mr Speaker, I withdraw. Ms BLIGH: We have put in place arrangements in the past in recognition of the extraordinary impacts. We will continue those arrangements and we will work with the community to develop a plan for the future of the Mary Valley. But where do opposition members stand on this issue? They say that their alternative has always been desalination, but where do they really stand on desalination? They really like it as long as it is not built anywhere. That is what they want: a phantom desal plant that is not built anywhere. The member for Maroochydore: ‘Not in my electorate.’ The member for Currumbin: ‘Not in my electorate’. The member for Noosa: ‘Not in Noosa.’ Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear the honourable the Premier. There is too much noise. Ms BLIGH: The member for Noosa not only says that he does not want it in his electorate but says that he does not want it at the mouth of the Brisbane River either. What we have over there is people who say one thing in their own electorates and another thing somewhere else. Those opposite will come to the rest of South-East Queensland and say, ‘We’ll supply desalinated water,’ but when we ask where it should go they have no idea. We have a 50-year strategy and it will protect South-East Queensland well into the future. Sale of Public Assets Ms GRACE: My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier please advise the House of any recent developments in the asset sales program? Ms BLIGH: I can advise the House of some interesting recent developments. It appears that we have further confirmation of the policy confusion of the Liberal National Party on this issue. I would like to start by reminding the House of what policy the Liberal National Party took to the election. On page 12 of the economic policy statement that the LNP issued in the March election it says, ‘An LNP government would not oppose the privatisation of public assets.’ In a speech outlining the LNP’s economic platform on 9 February, what did the former leader, Lawrence Springborg, have to say? I quote: ‘I would like now to touch on our policy of asset sales. The LNP does not oppose privatisation of public assets.’ That all seems pretty clear, doesn’t it? 12 Nov 2009 Questions Without Notice 3353

But, as always, opposition members say one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience. That is what they said to the economic business forum, but what did they write to a constituent who asked what their policy is now? In a recent email to a local constituent, the Leader of the Opposition had this to say: ‘Before the last state election, the LNP gave an ironclad guarantee that it had no plans whatsoever to privatise assets.’ So they say one thing in one forum and another thing in the other. This is their view of an ironclad guarantee. An ironclad guarantee is when they write into their policy, ‘We do not oppose the privatisation of assets.’ They do not like the truth because the truth is that they did not tell the truth. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear the Premier’s answer. The House will come to order. Ms BLIGH: As I say, on the issue of water those opposite will say one thing to their constituents and another to the rest of South-East Queensland. On the issue of asset sales they will say one thing to the business community, one thing to the board rooms and another in emails to their constituents. These people cannot be trusted on any policy issue. What do they say in relation to desal? They will supply desal plants but they will not actually build them. They do not have a single location. They say one thing in one forum and another in another forum. The Leader of the Opposition has been caught out on this one. He says one thing in one forum and another in another forum. Opposition members interjected. Ms BLIGH: I know those opposite do not like to hear it. They do not like to hear it, because he cannot hold a position between lunchtime and afternoon tea.

Traveston Dam Mr GIBSON: My question is to the Premier. I have here a report from the Goss government in 1994 ruling out the Traveston Crossing Dam on the basis of high capital cost, inundation of prime agricultural land and the displacement of population. Will the Premier explain why 12 years later she started a $600 million campaign that lasted three years, six months and 16 days that has caused tragedy in the Mary Valley that simply cannot be quantified, all without any approvals to build a dam, just to arrive back at the original decision contained in this 1994 report that she could have read for free? Tabled paper: Extract from a report dated December 1994 by the Department of Primary Industries titled ‘An Appraisal Study of Water Supply Sources for the Sunshine Coast and the Mary River valley’ [1346]. An incident having occurred in the public gallery— Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before you start, Premier, I would ask the public gallery to come to order. That is not the accepted convention in this place. Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. The member asks what has changed between 1994 and now. There are two things which we have learnt since 1994. First, the rate of population growth has exceeded any of the predictions in 1994 and the rate of forward population forecasts are beyond anything that people predicted in 1994. We have to cope with that population pressure and those people will all need to drink. What else has happened since 1994? We have learnt the peril of relying on a single storage water source of Wivenhoe. What happens when you have the worst drought in history? You see 2½ million people come perilously close to running out of water. When you go through an event like that— Mr Elmes interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Noosa. Ms BLIGH: Those two facts mean that any government has to reassess its water sources, its water supply and its water demand. We have a comprehensive water strategy. Firstly, reduce demand. We have the lowest water use around the country. We have lowered our water use permanently because the habits of people in South-East Queensland have changed forever, and we commend them for that. But we also recognise that the people of South-East Queensland have a legitimate aspiration and a legitimate expectation that adequate water will be supplied for them by any government. That is the responsibility that this government accepts and that we will meet. So, what do we have? We have a desalination plant, we have recycled water providing industrial sites like power stations, we have pipes that are now moving water around so we get more effective use out of it, and we are planning now for 2017 and for 2030 so that my children, their children and the people whom everyone in this House represents now, in 10 years, in 20 years and in 30 years will have the water they need regardless of whether we ever enter another drought. What we need in Queensland is a 50-year water strategy, and it is this government that will deliver it. 3354 Questions Without Notice 12 Nov 2009

Sunshine Coast University Hospital Ms MALE: My question without notice is to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health. Will the Deputy Premier update the House regarding plans to provide more hospital beds on the Sunshine Coast sooner? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question. The Bligh government will build a Sunshine Coast University Hospital, with construction set to commence in 2012. But it is very instructive when one has a look at the Sunshine Coast Daily of 10 November 2009 to see what the Leader of the Opposition said in response to questioning from that newspaper. The article states— THE Queensland Opposition yesterday reaffirmed its commitment to making the Sunshine Coast University Hospital a top priority if it ever wrests power from the Labor Party. But opposition leader John-Paul Langbroek stopped short of putting a timeframe on the promise. He was tied up in shadow cabinet meetings all day. Mr McArdle: What was your commitment? Mr LUCAS: The government’s commitment is to commence constructing the hospital in 2012. The next election is due in the first half of 2012. The opposition leader cannot even make a commitment to building on the same timetable of the government. I would have thought having made it such an issue on the Sunshine Coast that the Leader of the Opposition could have made it crystal clear what the position was. Whether it is a $20,000 a head dinner, $1,000 donation limits, he has a position on nothing. He thinks he can slide under the radar. I thank the member for Caloundra for his comments, because his wonderful contribution was in the Sunshine Coast Daily yesterday as well. The article states— ‘Any funds set aside for the construction of the Traveston Dam should be immediately funnelled into building the Sunshine Coast University Hospital,’ ... Mark McArdle said ... Is that true? Is that your position? Mr McArdle: You wasted $700 million. Mr LUCAS: Let the record show that the member for Caloundra yesterday said that, and will not repeat it here now. It is not what his leader has said. His leader has said they have alternative water policies. We look forward to seeing them. But we know this: you cannot take money out of a water project and put it into a hospital. Why? Because water projects are paid for by water users. Therefore, the costs of those things are paid by ongoing water charges. Hospitals are not like that. We have a free hospital system. The only conclusion that the person who is in charge of health policy in the opposition and his fellow travellers has is to take the money out of water, where it is on a user-pays basis, and put it into a hospital and make it a user- pays basis. That is grossly irresponsible. It is saying the wrong thing to the people of the Sunshine Coast. You know it is not right. If you did believe it, you would be doing it by charging people to use a public hospital. What a disgrace. You will say anything. Jobs Mr NICHOLLS: My question is to the Premier. Given that the labour force figures out today show that Queensland is categorically the unemployment capital of Australia, with a 6.1 per cent trend unemployment rate, will the Premier say how many more jobs would have been created if the Labor government had not spent $600 million on the political stunt known as Traveston Dam? Ms BLIGH: What I can say is that some of that money has in fact been spent on jobs. There have been people employed doing the drilling work and doing the assessment. It has actually created work. Any suggestion that it has not is rubbish. Ms Simpson interjected. Ms BLIGH: I take the interjection from the member for Maroochydore, who says that we should have done geotechnical drilling before we announced the dam. So go up to the Mary Valley and start drilling into it but do not tell people what for! That is what the member for Maroochydore says. There it is: the sharp edge of policy. Government members interjected. Ms BLIGH: Yes. Those opposite say we will drive the bulldozer in and get the big drills out but we will not tell you what we are doing. We told the people what the drillers were there for and those people were entitled to that information. For those people who have not seen the labour force figures, they do show that there has been a slight increase to 6.1 per cent in Queensland, which is disappointing. However, I am pleased to advise that we have seen 1,900 new jobs created in Queensland in the last month. So what we are seeing is population growth and more labour market participation, which is driving a slight increase in the percentage, but 1,900 new jobs created in Queensland in the last month. 12 Nov 2009 Questions Without Notice 3355

I know that a number of those jobs were created in Main Roads projects that started under our building program, in hospital projects and in busway building projects—built by a Labor government and all of which would have been cut by those opposite under their election policy. Mr Nicholls interjected. Mr McArdle interjected. Ms BLIGH: We know that the election policy that those opposite took to the people of Queensland was to cut a minimum of 12,000 jobs every year for three years. They said that they would fund their election commitments by cutting 36,000 jobs. That is the jobs of people who work in our hospitals, people who work in our schools, people who work in our police stations, people who work in the Ambulance Service. Mr McArdle interjected. Mr Nicholls interjected. Ms BLIGH: Those opposite do not like it but they still have not repudiated their three per cent cut. They are still locked in to their three per cent cut in jobs—12,000, 12,000 and 12,000 gone under the LNP. Under Labor, 1,900 jobs were created in one month. Mr Nicholls interjected. Mr McArdle interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the honourable members for Caloundra and Clayfield for persistent interjection. I call the honourable member for Mount Ommaney.

Jobs Mrs ATTWOOD: My question is to the Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development. Can the Treasurer advise the House of the latest Queensland employment data? Mr FRASER: I thank the honourable member for Mount Ommaney for her question and her commitment, like every member of this government, to being part of a government that has the policy grunt to put in place a program to create jobs and to support the Queensland economy. As I reported in the House last month, we did see job creation in the previous month in this state. I can report again today, with the data released half an hour ago, that for the second month in a row we have seen job creation in this state—job growth in this state over the last month of 1,900 jobs. That means that for the second month in a row we have made inroads on our target to deliver a net 100,000 new jobs over the term of this parliament. For the second month in a row we have seen positive job creation in the state of Queensland, supported by the jobs program that we are implementing. The $18 billion building program is supporting jobs in every corner of this state. How does that compare with other states around Australia over the last month? In New South Wales job creation was less than half of that, at 800. In South Australia it was just 400. In Western Australia—which we are being called upon to match the achievement of; let us match the achievement of Western Australia over the last month—there has been a net loss of 400 jobs. There has been a net loss of 200 jobs in Tasmania. Where is Queensland in that pecking order? We are towards the front of job creation in this country over the last month. Of course, we would not expect any member of the opposition, we would not expect the shadow Treasurer, to be part of the team that is out there promoting job creation in this state. What we see now right around the nation are the first seeds of recovery being planted, being driven by governments that have had the guts to put in place a policy program and respond to the circumstances we have seen. How does our job commitment compare to that of those opposite? As I tabled last sitting week, 48,000 jobs were created in this state by this government last year. That is our commitment. That is our track record. Which is the government that delivered five per cent unemployment in this state? It is this government. The Labor Party has delivered that. What is our commitment? It is net 100,000 new jobs. Are we getting on with delivering them? You bet we are. What is the target of those opposite? Their target remains zero—the number of policies, zero, and the number of jobs to be created, zero. The only target that the Liberal National Party has in this state continues to be the target of cutting 12,000 jobs out of the public sector. That means fewer teachers, fewer nurses and fewer police for a growing population. While our population continues to grow, while our participation rate remains up there, while there is growth in the labour force around the nation—half of which was in this state—what is this government doing? We are getting on with the job of creating jobs. 3356 Questions Without Notice 12 Nov 2009

Traveston Dam Mr SEENEY: My question without notice is to the Premier. Since it was announced in 2006, we have consistently argued that the Traveston Dam was purely a political decision designed to create the perception that the government was belatedly addressing a water crisis caused by its failure to build anything for so long. Will the Premier now admit that the Traveston Dam proposal, including the $600 million spent and the immeasurable trauma caused to the people of the Mary Valley, was all about creating a political perception to save a failing government? Ms BLIGH: As I have outlined to this House on many occasions and again this morning, the Traveston Crossing Dam is part of a systematic water grid for the south-east corner of our state. It is not a stand-alone proposition and was never proposed as such. It is part of a region-wide strategy to improve our water supply now and into the future. It is not just about dealing with needs now; it is about drought proofing us so that we can continue to enjoy adequate and secure water supply. I notice that in a number of the questions this morning there is an implication that the government should not have spent money in the Mary Valley while the decision was being made. One thing I will not apologise to the people of the Mary Valley for is making sure that when they wanted to be relieved of home ownership in that area because of hardship we stood by them and we bought their properties. Mrs Stuckey interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Currumbin will cease interjecting. Ms BLIGH: That was the right thing to do. Hardship acquisitions for any project are the right thing to do. We did not use one single compulsory power. People only sold to the government where they chose to do so. It would have been the wrong thing by those people to refuse to do so in the circumstances. Looking after the people in the Mary Valley in the last 2½ years has involved being willing to buy their properties when they said they wanted to move. That was the right thing to do, and a failure to do so in my view would have only added to a very difficult situation. Will that money be recouped by the Queensland taxpayer? Yes, it will, as it has been with other projects where resumed properties and resumed land have subsequently not been needed. In Main Roads it is done almost every day of the week. Yes, we will offer those properties back to the owners. If the owners do not want to buy them, we will put them into the market. In fact, it is possible that the taxpayer could see a better return. We stood in the market to make hardship acquisitions for those people in the Mary Valley who sought them. Not at any stage did we use any compulsory acquisition powers, and we would have been wrong to do so. Mr Dickson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Buderim will cease interjecting. Ms BLIGH: That was part of a carefully planned 50-year water strategy. It will be replaced and we will have water security now and into the future. Borumba Dam Ms DARLING: My question without notice is to the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade. What is the Queensland government policy on Borumba Dam? Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable member for Callide! Mr Seeney: It is alright; I don’t mind him following me. Mr SPEAKER: I mind you not taking notice of my instruction. Please cease interjecting. Mr ROBERTSON: As members would be aware, the raising of Borumba Dam was part of our longer term strategy for water supplies in South-East Queensland. Of course we did not provide the same level of priority that the opposition did in terms of making it a first-order project to supply the future needs of South-East Queensland. Let us understand for one moment what raising of Borumba Dam actually means. It is not just raising Borumba Dam in the Mary River catchment on Yabba Creek by 25 metres, but it also involves the building of a new weir at Coles Creek crossing. Where is Coles Creek crossing, one might ask? Well, it just happens to be just upstream from the site of the Traveston Dam. So let us put aside— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. Mr ROBERTSON: In order to help members opposite remember what their policy was, I, too, have a historical document: it is called the Water Infrastructure Planning and Development Implementation Plan from July 1997. It has a picture of a happy, smiling and much younger Howard Hobbs as minister. 12 Nov 2009 Questions Without Notice 3357

Mr SPEAKER: Minister, refer to the member by his correct title. Mr ROBERTSON: What does this implementation plan provide for? The raising of Borumba, the building of Coles Creek weir—the member for Warrego will remember this—and what else? A new dam on Amamoor Creek. Where is Amamoor Creek? It is in the Mary River Valley! Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. Mr ROBERTSON: So you just do not get a dam raising and you just do not get a weir— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order! Mr ROBERTSON: You just do not get a dam raising and you just do not get a weir; you also get a new dam on Amamoor Creek. I table that document. Tabled paper: Extract from a report, dated July 1997, by the Department of Natural Resources titled ‘Water Infrastructure Planning and Development Implementation Plan’ [1347]. In terms of some comments made earlier—and I may require an extension of time here if the Leader of the House is of a mind—I just happen to have a report in my hands which is publicly available. It is on the Queensland Water Commission website. I suggest members opposite actually read it, because it is the preliminary assessment of the raising of Borumba Dam, which of course incorporates the new weir at Coles Creek just upstream from Traveston Dam. (Time expired) Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (11.12 am): I move— That the minister be further heard. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Mr SPEAKER: Two minutes. Mr ROBERTSON: I noticed that when I mentioned that the raising of Borumba Dam might interest the federal government most members opposite said, ‘No, it wouldn’t because it’s an existing project.’ I think they need to read John Howard’s EPBC Act 2000, because it does not matter, particularly when it involves a new weir on Coles Creek. This is what the assessment actually said in terms of Borumba Creek with regard to vegetation. In terms of vegetation, it said that there is a small endangered ecosystem that needs to be taken into consideration and that a review of the rare and threatened species database around Borumba indicated eight fauna species, three mammals, two birds, two reptiles and one frog within the area of Yabba Creek that are either rare or endangered. The river includes Mary River cod, which is currently listed as endangered, and the platypus. It went on to say— While the existing dam already acts as a barrier to fish and has modified the riverine habitat within the creek, further modification may have some impact, especially downstream of the dam wall, What does this document that is publicly available conclude? It says— The impact of this Act— the EPBC Act— on the project is not understood at this time, although Federal Government approval would be required. So the same rules that apply to Traveston also apply to Borumba. So if those opposite think that they can go out publicly and say, ‘We’ve got a plan that is foolproof,’ then they are either kidding themselves or they are being dishonest with the people of Queensland, because in black and white the EPBC Act applies equally to Borumba as it does to Traveston, particularly when they are looking at building a weir at Coles Creek just upstream from where the Traveston Dam was going to go. It is about time they got a bit honest with the people of the Sunshine Coast hinterland and told them about the raising of Borumba Dam, told them about Coles Creek Weir and told them about Amamoor Creek Dam as well. (Time expired) Environmental Policies Mr ELMES: My question without notice is to the Premier. Premier, given that the science behind the state government’s environmental policies has been exposed a fraud and a hoax, will the Premier tell Queenslanders, who are concerned about the future of our environment but increasingly more concerned about her dishonesty, how they can trust her anymore? Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Premier, I will seek advice on the question. I call the Premier. 3358 Questions Without Notice 12 Nov 2009

Ms BLIGH: I have to say that I think that that question is a very poor reflection on the member. It is well known in most professions that people can have different professional opinions. That in no way reflects on people’s honesty and nor does it reflect that they are somehow frauds. The member has cast aspersions on Professor Gordon Grigg, the emeritus professor of zoology at the University of Queensland. He has called Professor Craig Franklin, a professor in zoology at the University of Queensland, a fraud. He has said that Dr Jean-Marc Hero from Griffith University has perpetrated a hoax, and he has said that Dr Tom Hatton from the CSIRO has been involved in a fraud and a hoax. We can have our political fights in here, but I would have thought that everybody in this country understands the reputation that the CSIRO enjoys—rightly—not only in Australia but around the world. These people are international scientists of the highest merit, people who we ought to be proud of as Australians, people who provided their best professional advice to a government. Equally, I believe that the federal minister was advised by people who were as well motivated as the people I have just referred to—people who in their own professional judgement made a judgement and provided advice. I do not believe that it helps this debate for those sorts of accusations to be made against people who in good faith gave their professional opinion as part of a legitimate process of assessment and determination. I think what we are seeing from the member for Noosa is a return to the bad old days when the National Party bashed academics and scientists. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Stop the clock please. Resume your seat, Premier. We will wait for order. Ms BLIGH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will stand and defend the academic and professional integrity of the scientists of one of Australia’s best universities, the University of Queensland. I will stand and defend the academic and professional integrity of scientists from that great university in Queensland, Griffith University. I will always stand in any forum in the world and proclaim the CSIRO as one of the greatest scientific organisations on the planet. The attack that has just been made on those people from the member for Noosa is a disgrace.

Town Centres, Beautification

Mr O’BRIEN: My question is to the Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships. I understand that Douglas Street on Thursday Island is getting a makeover. Are there any other town centres in Queensland to receive local government funding for such works? Ms BOYLE: I am pleased indeed to confirm that the member for Cook is quite correct. There is a beautification project for Douglas Street on Thursday Island that is already underway and is being supported with local government funding. This project means new gardens, trees, plantation bays and a ClimateSmart watering system. I look forward to visiting Thursday Island shortly and seeing the project, which must be in its final stages. I am pleased to let honourable members in the House know that this project is one of many projects involving the beautification of cities and towns all over the state of Queensland. They are main street projects. Of course, main streets are really important in terms of setting the style of a town or a city. One might say that they are welcoming faces that can entice visitors and residents alike to stop awhile to enjoy. Just last week, Emerald unveiled its $6 million new main street thoroughfare. I am pleased to inform honourable members that the state contributed $3 million towards that important project. This family-friendly hub boasts underground power, shady public spaces and special lighting, just to name a few of its drawcards. In fact, right across Queensland many communities have been giving their town centres new heart—from restoring old buildings to commissioning modern new ones—and the Bligh government has been supporting them. We have contributed over $13.5 million in state funding, with the new streetscapes luring locals and visitors to stay that bit longer in our towns. We all know that Queensland is the most decentralised state. We all know that Queensland is growing and that South-East Queensland is facing growth pressures. I am pleased to say that, too, so are many centres across Queensland. Those towns stand next to those who have ambitions and opportunities to grow in the future and we are supporting them. For example, Cloncurry is planning a two-stage $8.99 million revamp, including $750,000 from the state. In Stanthorpe, there is new disability access for the library and the art gallery, more public spaces with seating, more shade covers, new plants and public art. Gladstone’s CBD is undergoing a facelift, with significant landscaping and footpath improvements along Goondoon and Roseberry streets as well as a new outdoor public dining space. The story continues in Mount Isa, Nerang and Childers. There are 70 such projects in towns and cities throughout Queensland. The Bligh government looks after not just South-East Queensland but the growing centres of the broader state of Queensland. 12 Nov 2009 Questions Without Notice 3359

Water Supply Mr HORAN: My question is to the honourable the Premier. In her varied roles as Premier, Treasurer and infrastructure minister, the Premier has presided over a littered landscape of the Traveston tragedy, the dysfunctional western corridor treated sewage pipeline, the rusted Tugun desalination plant and billions of dollars in project overruns and waste. Will the Premier now take full responsibility for all of these failures? Ms BLIGH: Like any Premier, I take responsibility for providing for the basic needs of the people of the state of Queensland, and one of the most fundamental and basic needs is water. It will not just be the people here in Brisbane we will be looking after; we will be looking after the people of Toowoomba. What leadership did the honourable member show when his city was running out of water? Mr Lawlor: A jelly back in the front row. Ms BLIGH: That is right, a jelly back in the front row. As soon as the going got tough, he went to water, so to speak, in Toowoomba. But who came in and provided a long-term secure water future for Toowoomba? The Labor government. Did John Howard provide any assistance? No. When Toowoomba was perilously close to running out of water, did John Howard step forward? No, he was gone. Did the federal member? No. Nothing. Did the state member ever come and see me in any of the roles that he has just outlined? Not once. However, I can tell members that the Labor member for Toowoomba, the Hon. Kerry Shine, was through my door talking about water day in and day out, making sure that the people whom he represents received a long-term water future. That pipeline has been built and it will provide for the people of Toowoomba the long-term water security that that major regional centre deserves. It will be delivered by a state Labor government, because we believe that people need water security regardless of where they live. That means that when we have a growing population, as we have in Toowoomba, and their water supply has evaporated, then we will be there just like we were there for the people of Cloncurry. Again, who was there when the people of Cloncurry needed water? It was this government—a state Labor government—finding water solutions whether people were out west, whether they were in the far north, or whether— Mr Wallace: The Ross River Dam upgrade in Townsville. Ms BLIGH: The Ross River Dam upgrade in Townsville or in the south-east. Water is life. We all need it every single day. We will provide a long-term water future for Queenslanders here in the south- east and in regional Queensland—wherever it is needed. That will require some hard decisions from time to time and when they are needed we will make them. Australian Rivers Institute Ms van LITSENBURG: My question is to the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade. Has the minister read the advice provided to Minister Garrett from the Australian Rivers Institute? Mr ROBERTSON: It probably will not surprise too many people to note that, yes, I have. Unlike the member for Noosa, who just launched an extraordinary attack on the experts we used to provide advice to the Coordinator-General, I think it is useful to note what Professor Stuart Bunn from the Australian Rivers Institute at Griffith University, who was the expert who provided advice to federal Minister Garrett, had to say. I have known Professor Bunn for some time. He is a well-respected individual. But I think— Mr Lucas: So you won’t do what the member for Noosa did and trash his reputation. Mr ROBERTSON: No. Indeed, what I will reflect on is what Professor Bunn said about the experts whom we used. I quote— There is no question that the scientific advisers have experience and expertise in this area in the proposed mitigation measures. Professor Grigg is a noted animal psychologist who has published extensively on a wide range of terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates, including some early work on the biology of lungfish; Professor Franklin is a conservation physiologist with an impressive publication record on the physiology of a range of aquatic vertebrates, including two of the turtles at risk in the Mary River; and Associate Professor Mark Hero is well regarded as one of Australia’s leading scientists in relation to amphibian biology and species conservation and has particular experience with the giant-barred frog. That is the view of the person whose advice federal Minister Garrett relied on to make his decision yesterday. What you did just before was an absolute disgrace. Mr SPEAKER: Minister, direct your comments through the chair. Mr ROBERTSON: It also demonstrated that no member opposite has bothered to read the advice provided to Minister Garrett. That is why you are the low flyers of policy development in this state. We have already caught them out today in terms of their dishonesty with the people of the Sunshine Coast. No, they were not going to get Traveston, but they were going to get Amamoor. Amamoor must have been going to be a special dam, because it clearly was not going to require any 3360 Questions Without Notice 12 Nov 2009 property resumptions, it clearly was not going to impact on the lungfish, it clearly was not going to have other ecological impacts, it clearly was not going to cause social and economic distress in local communities. It would have been a magic dam. This is the dishonesty of the members opposite. They did the people over down south with the Wivenhoe Dam—Wolffdene Dam. Opposition members interjected. Mr ROBERTSON: It links to the Wivenhoe. You did the people over for the Wolffdene Dam. You did not mind doing that. Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order. I think the minister has been here long enough to know the ruling of the House about addressing his comments through the chair. Four times— Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will hear the point of order. Mr SEENEY: By my count the minister has addressed members of the opposition in the first person four times. Mr Lucas: And you called the Premier precious this morning! Mr SEENEY: I am calling the minister incompetent at the moment; that’s the difference. I think someone who sits on the front bench should have a bit more respect for the House. Mr SPEAKER: Order! You are now debating the issue. The point of order is quite right. The minister will address his comments through the chair. Mr ROBERTSON: I, too, would be embarrassed about the history of the treatment of the people of Wolffdene by the National Party. I would not want to be associated with that either, member for Callide. No wonder you got up on that point of order. Mr Hobbs: It is not right. You can’t even tell the truth. Mr ROBERTSON: That’s not true, no. Caught you. Gotcha! Mr Hobbs: You got nothing. Mr Lucas interjected. Mr Gibson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Warrego and Deputy Premier. Member for Gympie. Member for Warrego, I ask you to withdraw from the House under standing order 253A for 10 minutes. I ask you to withdraw. The House will come to order. I do not want any further interjections from either side. Whereupon the honourable member for Warrego withdrew from the chamber at 11.30 am.

Bushfire Preparedness

Mrs PRATT: My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability. Roughly 3,000 acres was destroyed in the Bunya Mountains by a fire lit by rangers who failed in their duty of care to contain the fire. Has this fire and its impact on neighbouring properties been investigated? Will compensation be forthcoming to property owners negatively impacted by the fire? As a new minister to this portfolio, will the minister undertake a review of fire reduction procedures used in national parks to correct failed practices? Ms JONES: I thank the honourable member for her question. The member made a statement about this last night in the House. I said to her that if she has any evidence of such a thing occurring or any advice that she wants to provide to me my door is always open. We take our responsibility in regard to fire safety very seriously. As part of preparing for fire season this year we have undertaken hundreds of burns right across the state. We have committed more funds towards fire prevention than any other government in our history. As I said, this is something that I am more than willing to talk to the member about. Fire safety is paramount. As we continue to face the impacts of climate change in this state we will have to increase our fire prevention. That is why we are continuing to work very closely as an agency, along with Fire and Rescue and rural fire brigades, to make sure that we will do that. I will investigate any concerns that the honourable member has in regard to this fire. I ensure all members that we will continue to carry out the fire mitigation program that we have in place. Mr SPEAKER: The time for question time is over. 12 Nov 2009 Environmental Protection and Other Acts Amendment Bill 3361

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading

Hon. KJ JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability) (11.32 am): I present a bill for an act to amend the Environmental Protection Act 1994, Fisheries Act 1994, Nature Conservation Act 1992 and Sustainable Planning Act 2009 for particular purposes. I present the explanatory notes, and I move—

That the bill be now read a first time. Question put—That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time.

Tabled paper: Environmental Protection and other Acts Amendment Bill 2009 [1348]. Tabled paper: Environmental Protection and other Acts Amendment Bill 2009, explanatory notes [1349].

Second Reading

Hon. KJ JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability) (11.32 am): I move—

That the bill be now read a second time. This bill introduces amendments to support the Queensland Government Environmental Offsets Policy. An environmental offset is a positive action taken to compensate for unavoidable negative environmental impacts that might result from an activity or a development. An offset differs from mitigation by addressing any remaining impact after all attempts to first avoid and then reduce the impact have been exhausted. Environmental offsets have been used in Queensland for many years. They are a commonplace approach to providing flexibility for development projects that face challenges of meeting the community’s environmental standards. This bill will provide legal certainty for environmental offset conditions placed on development approvals or other approvals for activities which impact on environmental values. Conditions requiring an environmental offset can already be legally imposed under relevant legislation. However, by including express provisions about offsets, we are improving legal certainty and making the legislation more clear for state and local government decision makers, the development industry and the community. This bill amends the Environmental Protection Act 1994, the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and the Fisheries Act 1994 to insert a conditioning power in each act for environmental offsets. This power will clarify the ability to use offsets as an enforceable condition on approvals. The bill also amends the Nature Conservation Act 1992 to ensure an efficient process for amending conservation plans under this act. Conservation plans will require amendment to insert a conditioning power for environmental offsets. The bill streamlines the process for making amendments to conservation plans. This bill does not introduce an offsets regime. That is already provided by the Queensland Government Environmental Offsets Policy, which came into effect in 2008. This bill supports the legislative implementation of the policy. The policy sets out the principles and guidelines for applying and developing more detailed specific-issue offsets policies for important environmental values such as vegetation and fish habitat. The Queensland Government Environmental Offsets Policy was introduced to ensure that offsets are used consistently and transparently across the state, effectively as a last line of environmental protection response. Environmental offsets can potentially assist the Queensland government in meeting the Toward Q2 target of protecting 50 per cent more land for nature conservation and public recreation by 2020. One of the ways an environmental offset requirement can be met by developers is by making a financial contribution to the Balance the Earth Trust, administered by Ecofund to provide funds to increase our national parks estate. This bill will ensure the requirement to make a financial contribution to the Balance the Earth Trust constitutes a legal requirement as a condition of an approval. This bill will strengthen the Queensland Government Environmental Offsets Policy and other specific-issue offsets policies by ensuring that enforceable offset conditions can be imposed on approvals. I commend this bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Elmes, adjourned. 3362 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009

BUILDING AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 29 October (see p. 3045), on motion of Mr Hinchliffe— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr GIBSON (Gympie—LNP) (11.37 am): I rise to make a contribution to the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, a bill to amend the Acquisition of Land Act 1967, the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008, the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, the Building Act 1975, the Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990, the Land Title Act 1994, the Mixed Use Development Act 1993, the Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002, the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000, the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994. I rise this morning in the House and indicate that the LNP strongly supports the move towards a more sustainable society. Indeed, we were looking forward to seeing this bill as a step further along the path to a truly sustainable society. How disappointed we were with the final result. It is clear that this bill is poorly thought out. It is clear that this bill is littered with unintended consequences. Even a quick glance at the legislation shows loopholes big enough to drive a truck through. I notice that the government has already addressed one of those loopholes with the amendments that it has circulated this morning. It is disgraceful that a bill can be presented to this House with such admirable intentions and be so sloppily presented. The aim of increasing sustainability of housing should be applauded and should be taken seriously. It should not be rushed into. It should not be one that is driven solely because of an election commitment, but should be driven for long-term reasons that will benefit our communities not just into the next year but into the next generation. This minister should hang his head in shame for introducing into this parliament poorly thought out and badly framed legislation. Perhaps what we see in this bill is a rush because of a hasty deal done with the Greens and we are now seeing it being stitched up. Mr Hinchliffe: Ha, ha! Mr GIBSON: The minister laughs that nervous laugh because he knows how much truth there is in that. We have seen time and time again government members opposite deny the environmental principles for political purposes. Let us look at the Traveston Dam as an example of where they deny that. Ms Jones interjected. Mr GIBSON: I take the interjection because the environment minister, who clearly should be supporting the environment, is on the record supporting Traveston—a blight on the record of the environment and this Labor government. What did the environment minister do? Did she stand up to protect the environment? Did she slam her fist down in cabinet and say, ‘Not over my dead body!’? No. She rose in this parliament and she spoke out in favour of Traveston. She put her name on the record as it being one of the sustainable ideas that this government is committed to producing. Thankfully, there are scientists who were relied upon by Peter Garrett who were able to see through the scheme and the deceit. Mr HINCHLIFFE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I do fear that the member for Gympie may have the prospect of becoming the member for Burnett soon enough, but he needs to move on and come to the matters of the bill during his speech on the second reading. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! I am listening to the debate. Thank you, Minister. The member for Gympie has the call. I would remind you—and I am studying the explanatory notes here—to keep to the bill. Mr GIBSON: For the benefit of the minister, who may have leadership ambitions himself—I point out that we know that the Premier is in a difficult situation as a result of Traveston. He is obviously looking for the numbers. He did not get a vote this morning. He was not able to get someone. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Could the clock please be restarted? Thank you. Mr GIBSON: Whilst I would have loved to have much more time, I appreciate what is left. What we see in this bill is an example of a failure of a government to think out appropriate policy solutions to the challenges that we face. Climate change is a real challenge. Those on the opposite side— Mr Watt interjected. Mr GIBSON: The member for Everton obviously has a challenge. Let me say it again: climate change is a real problem that we face. It is a real challenge that we face. Government members interjected. 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3363

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gympie, will you direct your comments through the chair? Members on my right will cease interjecting. Mr GIBSON: Climate change is a real problem but we must have real solutions, and those solutions are found in— Mr Watt: Desalination plants. Mr GIBSON: I take the interjection of the member for Everton. Obviously he does not support his own government’s policy on desalination plants. Clearly, we have someone who does not have the courage to stand up against his government. He will not be voting for the Premier; we know that now. We know that he is not the only one. Perhaps he will be supporting the Attorney-General in the leadership spill as it comes up because he does not support desalination. Let me come back because it is important and we have so much time to discuss this bill. The sun is shining. Let us come to the bill and let us enjoy what we have. We have to ensure that the solutions that we put forward to the challenges we face will deliver. We have to ensure that. It is not good enough to simply have some fluff and bubble, to simply have some greenwash out there—something that we have seen time and time again from this tired Labor government. This government is addicted to the concept that it can spin its way out of anything. It does not need to have the policy background to it; it just says, ‘Let’s get up and put the spin machine in overdrive.’ Unfortunately, that is what we are seeing in elements of this bill. The concepts contained within this bill are concepts that the LNP supports. Because this bill amends so many areas and will be addressing so many different concepts, we support this bill. However, we will be moving amendments to the clauses to address those key areas where this government once again has failed the people of Queensland. Once again this government refuses to do the heavy lifting. It addresses things in a simplistic and vote-grabbing way, not looking at the long-term consequences that we would find from inappropriate legislation or poorly drafted legislation. Let us come to some of the key themes that are contained within this bill. We note that the ‘ban the banners’ provision in this bill is an election promise by the Labor Party to ensure that sustainable provisions cannot be banned in developments. This is a laudable aim. It is appropriate. The bill will stop body corporates and developers from restricting the use of sustainable and affordable design measures including minimum floor areas; number of garages, bedrooms and bathrooms; minimum roof pitch; the orientation of a building; allowing occupation of a dwelling before landscaping, fencing, driveways and the like are completed; the installation of solar hot-water systems or photovoltaic cells; the colour of the roof; the window treatment and the specific material or finishes to external walls and roofs. These are admirable areas and this provision is a breath of fresh air. Why should someone not be able to move into their home simply because they have not had the landscaping done? Why should someone not be able to build their place because they have not included a two-car garage when they only require one? Why should it be that an estate developer must dictate the roof colour? So we find within this bill some sensible provisions. However, we are concerned about the unintended consequences of these provisions. What if we have a situation where someone in a development decides, for sustainability reasons— Ms Grace: Flip-flop, flip-flop. Mr GIBSON: I understand that the member for Brisbane Central flip-flops on many issues—and it is fine that she does that. However, we would like to focus on the elements of the bill. We are concerned about the unintended consequences. What if in order to meet the sustainability provisions of their own home someone decided to apply a highly reflective treatment to their windows so that they could ensure that their home experiences a reduction in heat but that heat is then radiated onto the property next door? What will we find in that situation? Who will be held liable for that arrangement? These were questions that we raised in the briefings—questions that were unable to be answered, questions that raised our concern that this bill has not been properly thought through. There is of course the element that this bill most prominently contradicts, and that is the infill targets of the South East Queensland Regional Plan as proposed by this government. Information from the minister’s office indicates that the South East Queensland Regional Plan requires that new residential developments should achieve a minimum net dwelling yield of 15 dwellings per hectare, with potential for higher densities as appropriate through the planning process and in instances where there are major activity centres. This will help to provide a mix of dwelling types to match the community’s changing needs, household sizes and structures. What we can see, though, is that under this legislation people will be able to dictate a minimum floor area for their property but the dwelling will still remain. So we may have within a hectare of land properties of only two bedrooms dotted around. So the targets that are set under the South East Queensland Regional Plan will now be difficult to achieve because the individuals will be able to say, ‘I only wish to have on my 400 square metre block a two-bedroom home.’ If each person on a 400 square metre block wishes to do that, it raises the challenge to meet the infill target of 15 dwellings per hectare. 3364 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009

That number of dwellings may still be achieved, but we will find that those dwellings will not accommodate the same number of people because they have chosen to build a smaller home. That is a potential unintended consequence of this bill. The questions are: who will make the decisions on what is appropriate? What about the adverse impacts on neighbours? As I indicated, there may be neighbourhood disputes resulting from reflective light from windows or roofs. We currently see—and I am sure all good members have experienced this—disputes over fences. If our community can have such concern over fences, with this bill we may see the unintended consequence of increased disputes due to reflected lights from windows or roofs. What appeal provisions are available for body corporates or developers to put forward their case as to why the requested changes should not be permitted? What about a building development where some stages are completed but the remaining stages are yet to be done? Will the different rules apply to the new stages, thus having the potential to significantly change the feel of the estate? Those who purchased in the early stages and have abided by the building covenants may now find themselves in an estate with a significantly changed environment. When they made their purchase they believed that everyone would have to abide by the requirements that they face, but will they now find that the latter stages where land is available but the approvals have perhaps not yet been sought will have a significantly different feel to them? Mr Hinchliffe: So are you for it or against it? Mr GIBSON: I take the minister’s interjection, because these are questions we need answered by him. What will happen to those people who have bought in good faith and find themselves in a position where their estate has significantly changed from the original marketed intention? Can this override by- laws and covenants? What about local government planning schemes? Will they be overridden by this bill? Yesterday we saw an example where the Queensland government’s housing department was overriding local planning laws so it was able to build properties that did not meet the requirements for balconies. We saw those concerns raised in Hansard and certainly in the Townsville Bulletin. When a government department does not abide by the local government planning laws, there is a concern that this bill may address that same area. Mr Hinchliffe: They were abiding by the laws, not by the scheme. Mr GIBSON: By the local planning scheme, correct. I take that interjection from the minister. So what we see here are further questions that have not yet been answered. The explanatory notes do not address these areas. Indeed, the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee raised concerns about the explanatory notes in its report to the parliament on the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. At point 21 in Legislation Alert No. 11 of 2009 the committee states— Explanatory notes were tabled at the first reading of the bill. They are drafted in clear and precise language. Generally, the notes contain the information required by section 23 but they do not address the consistency of the bill with fundamental legislative principles nor, where inconsistency may arise, the reasons for the inconsistency. Again, we find sloppiness from the government and a minister who, I must say, I expected better from. I thought he would address those key basic elements before introducing explanatory notes into the House. Whether the minister has responded to the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee report we are not yet aware, and I look forward to hearing his response to those concerns raised by the committee. I move to the issue of the sustainability declaration form. This morning in the parliament we heard the Premier stand up and put forward a position that clearly is not supported by the facts, as she is wont to do from time to time. The Premier was here this morning saying in a ministerial statement that her government is committed to reducing red tape, that her government wants to make it easier for people. Anyone who has lived in Queensland under the Bligh government knows that that is the last thing the government does. In this bill, we see red tape—or perhaps we should refer to it as ‘green tape’—gone mad. We have the situation here where we are told that the sustainability declaration form is largely for the education of the public and that anyone could fill it in. This form is what I have downloaded off the web, and I thank the minister for this. When we asked in the briefing whether we could see the sustainability declaration, it was posted onto the web and the minister did provide me with a copy of it. If this were an education tool you would think the government would make it easy for people to read. The font size begins at six and then rises to 8.5, so if we are going to have a situation whereby those who are— Mr Watt: I can show you the zoom function, if you like. Mr GIBSON: I am saying once it is printed off and for those who have a visual impairment. I understand that the member for Everton may not have experience with those who have a disability. I understand that, so let me take this opportunity— Mr WATT: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I find that remark offensive and I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Member for Gympie? 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3365

Mr GIBSON: It was a question, but I withdraw it if he finds it offensive. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Member for Gympie, would you withdraw unreservedly? Mr GIBSON: I withdraw unreservedly. Those who have experience working or living with someone with a disability would know that this form is difficult for anyone with a visual disability to read. It has font sizes of six, seven and 8.5. This is not the size of font that enables those who are visually impaired or have any form of difficulty in reading to clearly see. Indeed, the elderly—and we are told that they would have no trouble filling out this form—would be challenged if they had any sight problems. So we immediately find that the assertion that this is a tool for education is thrown out the window, because this government clearly does not present it in a form that is easy for people to see. What we now see is the argument put forward that anyone can fill out this form, that you do not need any form of expertise. The government said that any person can download the sustainability declaration and at the time of sale they can take it and fill it out because they do not require any assistance—except when they get to the very first question. What is that question? It states— E1 Energy equivalence rating (out of 10) if known. This is determined by an energy assessor So again, the premise that this government has put forward that anybody can fill out this form is shown to be false, because you immediately require the support of an energy assessor. I wonder how many members in this House would know right now what the energy equivalence rating is for their home. I can see one member indicating that. Mr Robertson: Two. Mr GIBSON: Two. That shows very clearly that the majority of the government members do not know and those on our side do not know. Why? Because we do not have the expertise. So the premise that has been put forward that anyone can fill out this form is once again shown to be that Labor trickery, that Labor spin, that Labor deceit that we have seen time and time again. Whether it was the fuel tax, whether it was the asset sell-off, whether it was the Traveston Crossing Dam, this government has form when it comes to deceiving the people of Queensland. Let me continue through the sustainability declaration form, because it is an interesting read. You do need your magnifying glass, but once you move through it you find that it is an interesting read. The next question asks what percentage of fixed internal lights are energy efficient. Are flouro lights energy efficient? Ultimately, there is no information provided to assist with this, so those homeowners who may be challenged and not know what is considered to be energy efficient lighting may make the wrong decision. I will move through the other elements of the form. Let me go to E4, and I will use my own home as an example. I have an induction cooktop but a gas oven. Which one do I tick? I cannot tick any, because the options are ‘induction cooktop only’—and, no, I have a gas oven—or a ‘gas cooktop and gas oven’, so I cannot tick that either. What we see here is a government that has not done its homework. It has not thought through those options. This form is complicated and confusing and will have no education value, because suddenly I move from wanting to be educated into now being in stress mode: ‘Hold on a minute. Which one should I tick? I don’t comply with either one. I find myself with a gas oven but an induction cooktop. I want to tick one of them. I’m feeling the pressure that I should, but I’m unable to.’ Again, this highlights the sloppy nature of this government. I turn to some of the other areas covered by the form. There is a question regarding a swimming pool or spa, or a pool or spa connected to off-peak tariff, T31 or T33. What if people are unsure as they are moving through this area about the changes they wish to make? There is not an explanation here as to why they should move to off-peak tariff. It is simply put down as a savings of $655 a year. As we move through, there are some good areas to encourage people to solar hot-water systems, heat pumps or gas hot-water systems. These are admirable intentions, but the problem is the delivery. This is something we find time and time again. The Labor Party has admirable intentions. They genuinely do. They just cannot deliver them. Dr Flegg: How generous! Mr GIBSON: Perhaps I am. I take the interjection from the member for Moggill. Perhaps I am a bit generous. Their intentions with the Traveston Crossing Dam were clearing not admirable. Ms Jones interjected. Mr GIBSON: Mr Deputy Speaker, I find the interjection made by the Minister for the Environment offensive, and I ask that she withdraw unreservedly. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! I did not hear the comment. Minister, you have been asked to withdraw that comment. Ms JONES: It was not a comment directed at the member. 3366 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Take your seat, member for Gympie. Upon seeking advice, I note that there has been a general ruling that, if a member finds a comment offensive, it should be withdrawn. Personally, neither I nor the clerks heard the comments. I would ask the minister to withdraw the comment. Ms JONES: I am happy to withdraw but it was not aimed at you. I just want to make that clear. Dr Flegg: Unreservedly. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, I would ask you to withdraw unreservedly. Ms JONES: I withdraw unreservedly. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Gympie has the call. Member for Moggill, you will have your turn next. Mr GIBSON: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As we move through these components and the educational element that is supposedly contained therein, I move to the end of the energy section in the sustainable declaration. It is encouraging people to save energy. If we add up all the potential energy savings, what number do we achieve? We achieve 225 per cent. Supposedly, if I am able to tick ‘yes’ to each of these areas, my home will save 225 per cent. That is a lot of energy. That is saving everything I use, everything I use all over again and then 25 per cent of that. How is that possible? I look forward to the minister explaining that. The voodoo mathematics that has gone into this is something that we find time and time again from Labor governments. I turn to the other components of the sustainability declaration. Let us go to W4, which talks about the number of shower heads that are a minimum of three-star WELS or AAA rated. I thought to myself, what are WELS? Then I found that this is one of those questions that is answered in six-point font. Mr Watt interjected. Mr GIBSON: The member for Everton is clearly finding himself in a difficult position, because time and time again we highlight the failures of this form to be an educative tool. What does the member for Everton want? Forget about it. ‘I don’t want to hear about it,’ he says. He does not care that it is in six-point font. We are highlighting this because we understand that this government’s intentions were admirable; its delivery was atrocious. This is what we have come to expect from Labor governments. At the end of the section on water, apparently if we are good in our home and we achieve in all of these areas we will save 150 per cent of water consumption. I would ask the minister: how do you save 150 per cent on water consumption? I would be happy to take an interjection that provides an answer. There is nothing because the minister knows that it is impossible to achieve a 150 per cent saving on water. This approach from the government fails to properly educate. This will be a lost opportunity; a missed chance to help the people of Queensland understand the importance of what they need to be doing in their homes. This government has failed to do that. Mr Dick interjected. Ms Jones interjected. Ms Grace interjected. Mr GIBSON: I take the interjections from those opposite. Obviously the Attorney-General has been plotting a leadership challenge because it is contained within the bill, which he obviously has not read. I understand the Attorney-General is out there shoring up the numbers, getting people to ring him in the morning, getting the first vote, but he has not read the bill. I know it is difficult; he is new. He wants to strongly shore up his numbers. He has been spending a lot of time in Tuvalu, so he needs to get the numbers in the party room. That is the challenge that he faces. I am happy to accept that he has not read the bill. He has spent more time shoring up his numbers for the leadership challenge. He is finding himself in a position where, as Christmas approaches, as the Premier said, he is sharpening the knives, checking the numbers and finding out who wants to go where. Mr Watt interjected. Mr GIBSON: Not at all. Let us look at the mandatory nature of this form. This form is mandatory, and yet when I asked whether those who do not speak English as their first language and who are required to fill out this form are provided with the form in any other language, the answer was no. This government has failed again. What we find here is a government that is putting out material for educational purposes and failing to look at— Mr Hinchliffe: Try an REIQ contract. 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3367

Mr GIBSON: I take the interjection from the minister. I would ask the minister: is the REIQ contract an educational tool? It is a legal document. We have been told from his department this is an educational tool. You would think, in that case, that it would be available to those people to be educated in a language other than English. What do we find from Labor? We find failure again to address this. We have looked at some of the other concerns that have been raised in regard to this form. What happens if someone makes an error, deliberately or accidentally, in compiling this form? Will they face penalties, as comprised in the bill, if their error is simply an accident? We have seen people in our community taken advantage of by unscrupulous individuals regarding roofing insulation. They have knocked on their door, pitched something to them, made them sign the forms, and then left and never delivered. There are those individuals who will look upon this as an opportunity to turn up and say, ‘This is mandatory. You must fill this out. I will do it for you for $1,000,’ only to find that the individuals are left carrying the can should it not be done properly. This is an area that is highly concerning. I note that the amendments put forward by the minister address the concerns raised by the Real Estate Institute of Queensland. We have been advised that the real estate professional indemnity insurers are already informing their members that they do not see filling this form out or even assisting in filling this form out as part of the real estate agent’s role and therefore this will not be covered by their professional indemnity insurance. This is concerning. In addition, there are penalties of up to 100 penalty points, or $10,000, for agents who fail to comply with this section. Ms Grace interjected. Mr GIBSON: I understand that the member for Brisbane Central is not interested in the concerns that have been raised with this form. She has made that very clear. I would ask with her repetitive interjections that she perhaps gets witty because we are finding them quite boring. Honourable members interjected. Ms Grace interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! The member for Brisbane Central will not interject while walking around the chamber. The member for Gympie will direct his comments through the chair. The minister will keep his comments to himself. Mr GIBSON: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is perhaps one of the best rulings we have heard today. There is no provision for a representative of the seller to sign this form. What will happen when we have absentee sellers in the state of Queensland—for example, those who own property here but find themselves interstate or overseas? Will they be required to have the form sent to them wherever they are? I pose a situation to the House. We have a soldier in the Australian Defence Force serving in Afghanistan and his property is placed on the market before he deploys— Mr Hinchliffe interjected. Mr GIBSON: He makes the intent known but he has not signed this form. What will happen? Can his property be marketed? Mr Hinchliffe: There is a provision. Mr GIBSON: I look forward to hearing from the minister about what that provision will be. Once again, we do not find the provision explained in the explanatory notes. Once again we find that there is no explanation. A government member: Don’t rely upon the explanatory notes. Mr GIBSON: Don’t rely upon the explanatory notes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! Perhaps the member for Gympie could direct his comments through the chair and not enter into a dialogue with the minister. Minister, could you allow the member for Gympie to continue. Mr GIBSON: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is tempting but I will direct my comments through you. What we know is that this document will have legal consequences. We know that there will be lawyers, being lawyers, who will move to find ways to use this form to attempt to cancel or modify property contracts. I understand that the amendments that will be introduced today will hopefully address this. I do not put it past those in the legal profession to look for other ways to use this document. A government member interjected. Mr GIBSON: There is no need for a conspiracy theory. Anyone who has dealt with the legal profession knows that they can be incredibly diligent in finding ways to get around documentation. Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I would mention to the member for Gympie that I happen to be a lawyer myself. 3368 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009

Mr GIBSON: No reflection on the chair at all—none whatsoever—nor upon those good members of this House who have chosen that noble profession. Let me come to the other components to this bill. There are considerable offences outlined in this bill. We see that with the amendments to the Building Act, the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act and the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act. The offences that are being proposed here are significant. I appreciate that not all of those acts are in the minister’s area but I would ask when we come to considering the clauses that the minister explain the rationale behind the weight of the proposed penalties. I will now move on to the provisions in the bill that relate to the Queensland Development Code. It is understood that these amendments are intended to streamline development applications impacted by some noise from transport corridors. It uses a system of statutory covenants between the Department of Transport and Main Roads and noise affected land. However, we note that this only relates to state controlled roads and some railways. The department advised that this provision does not relate to legislation passed this week regarding public transport, ports or airports. There may be some consideration given to extending this at some time in the future. I am sure the minister is very aware of concerns people have as his electorate is being impacted by a major development that has the potential for a fair amount of noise associated with it. We believe that the changes that are being brought forward are sensible changes. My understanding is that individuals who want to renovate their property will be required to comply with this provision if the bedroom or a relevant area of a neighbouring property backs on to that renovation. From our perspective, that does seem sensible. There is a great deal of angst for people who perhaps buy into an area not realising the nature of the noise, particularly that associated with railways. It is easy to buy into an area backing on to a railway corridor and not appreciate that at 3 am there is a major service that moves through and can be quite disruptive. We do support the provisions related to the Queensland Development Code. I will now address the provisions related to building surveying technicians. We note that the role of building surveying technicians will be extended to allow private sector building surveying technicians to perform some certifications without supervision. We also note that the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors does not support these changes. We would seek an explanation from the minister as to how he intends to address their concerns. We do not want to see a situation where we water down qualifications. Nor do we want to see a situation where perhaps due to pressure, as can happen in a variety of roles, individuals whose qualifications only take them to a certain stage are being pressured to assess and perform certifications of areas that are beyond their expertise. I would certainly seek an explanation from the minister on that particular issue. I will quickly touch on the issue of microchipping cats and dogs. The Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act amendments will allow, in selected circumstances, the microchipping of animals under eight weeks old under vet supervision. For example, if a breeder is taking a litter in for a check-up and they are under eight weeks of age, they can be microchipped at the same time. We see that as being a sensible move. Of course, the selected circumstances are important and vet supervision is critical in that regard. I move on to the amendments to the Sustainable Planning Act. That act has not even come into force and we are already amending it. That to me is unfortunate. One of the criticisms of the IPA, the Integrated Planning Act, was that there were so many amendments to it that it had become a dog’s breakfast. I hope this is not a sign of things to come with the Sustainable Planning Act and it is not going to be consistently amended. I know that a fair amount of work went into the Sustainable Planning Bill. I also know that the debate was guillotined. There were many concerns that we wanted to have addressed when considering the clauses that we felt were important to put on the record. We supported the bill—and I am not withdrawing that support at all—but there were areas where we felt it was important to have issues clarified on the record. If a section were before the courts then the debate on the clauses would have allowed the intent of the bill to be clearly understood. Unfortunately, that opportunity has been missed. I want to touch on the amendments to the Sustainable Planning Bill relating to classes of buildings. We have a situation in Queensland currently where under the Building Code we classify buildings. This is particularly the case for high-rises. This is relevant when we look at the South East Queensland Regional Plan and the infill targets that are being proposed in that plan. There will need to be a great deal of high-density buildings to address that. Currently, it is a class 2 building if it is being built for owner-occupier use. However, what we find—my colleagues from the Gold Coast would know this, as would others in high-tourism areas—is that buildings can be built to a class 2 standard but are then used for a class 3 purpose, and that class 3 purpose being for short-term letting such as tourism activities et cetera. It is quite common to find a 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3369 building built to a class 2 standard where there are some owner-occupiers of the units of that building, and therefore it is being used for class 2 purposes while other parts of that same building built to a class 2 standard have been made available for short-term rentals. The challenge is that those dwellings do not comply with the class 3 standards. They do not comply with the disability access that is required and they may not comply with the fire code requirements that exist on class 3 buildings. This is a dilemma that councils are unwilling to enforce. There are penalties under the existing act for a building that is being used for a purpose for which it was not intended, but time and time again councils are reluctant to impose those penalties. As a result, the incorrect use of those buildings means that owners, the public and those with disabilities are finding themselves in a difficult situation. God forbid that we would ever have another Childers anywhere in Australia, but there is the potential that because these buildings do not meet the fire codes those buildings could become fire traps to those people who are letting them and using them. There is an important need under the Building Act to ensure that there is enforcement of the codes as they currently exist. It is critical that we enable everyone who uses short-term accommodation to know that the building has been built for that purpose. Whether there needs to be a change to the building codes of Australia that would result in a consistent code throughout Australia or whether Queensland needs to take the lead, I say to the minister at this point that there is an opportunity here for us to take the lead and for us to ensure that new buildings do not end up in the situation where they are built to one classification but are used for another purpose where that other code requires a higher standard than what the building was built to. It is of great concern that this situation has not been addressed in these changes. Overall, I again want to reiterate that addressing sustainability in our community is a critical issue. It is one in which we should be embracing all opportunities. I understand the intent of this government to educate, but I cannot support a sustainability declaration that fails as an educational tool when that is its intended purpose. On those grounds, the opposition will be supporting the bill but opposing clauses relating to the mandatory sustainability declaration. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—LNP) (12.23 pm): Once again with this bill we see a government whose only recourse is to add more red tape to burden the lives of people who live in Queensland as a result of government members and ministers who have never done anything in the real world to understand the implications. If those opposite had been out in the real world, they would understand what the effects of these halfwitted decisions are on the people who have to live with them. However, the government’s solution for more efficient houses is a 56-question questionnaire. We are not playing 20 questions here; we are playing 56 questions that elderly Queenslanders who are going into nursing homes have to complete not to settle a contract on their home but just to put their home on the market! This is absolutely outrageous and an indictment of the way this government approaches things. So much that could be done in relation to sustainability in this state just goes through to the keeper because the government does not know what happens in the real world and its only solution is a 56-question questionnaire. Let me give one example. Our recently privatised electricity retailers provide a system where consumers can contract with them for their retail power and receive a five per cent discount for that power or their 13th month free, which equates to about an eight per cent discount. However, there is one group of householders who cannot get that discount because the government’s privatised retailers will not allow them to get a discount. And who are they? They are the people who put solar panels on the roof of their house. They get no discount. So they not only do not get a gross feed-in tariff if they put solar panels on their house but are paid a pittance. In fact, in the last quarter at home I got $25 back. Given the net cost of the system, I will have to wait until I turn 115 before I have recovered the net cost of it. Not only that, those people then find that a discount that is available to every other homeowner is not available because they have put solar panels on their roof. But this government’s solution is a 56- question questionnaire, not actually doing something that would assist people who are trying to do the right thing! One of the inevitable effects of a 56-question declaration is that the cost of selling or buying a home in Queensland will go up as a result of this decision today. Sometimes we accept that things can push up the price of homes. We sometimes accept that new homes should have water tanks, that new homes should have insulation and that new homes should not use electric hot water but use more expensive sources of hot water, but at least people get something for their money. For the cost of completing the 56-question questionnaire, Queenslanders will get absolutely nothing! This sort of declaration by a seller of a property is not new. We have been ticking the box on the electrical safety switches. There are issues in relation to, for example, pool fencing that a person might have to declare, although I can assure the minister that any changes to that are very recent. There may be declarations in relation to smoke alarms, fire safety and asbestos. But all of these things have something in common, and that is that if we do not get them right they could possibly impact the life of somebody who buys the house. Even though they impose an obligation and sometimes a cost on either the seller or the buyer of a home, because they relate to protecting somebody’s life, we can see that there is an argument and that there may be a justification. 3370 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009

There are areas which do not require any declarations which still might impact people’s lives. We have seen balcony collapses around South-East Queensland. There is no declaration in relation to the solidity or the engineering of a balcony, but we do have a 56-question questionnaire where you have to declare whether you have a swimming pool. I have never bought a house where I could not tell whether it had a swimming pool! You have to declare whether there is a covered patio. I have never bought a house where I could not tell if it had a covered patio! These matters are not matters that relate to public safety; these are matters that the seller is being asked to make a declaration on when they are rightly matters that the buyer should be making an assessment on. I have spoken to four lawyers in relation to this absurd piece of government bureaucracy. All four lawyers to whom I have spoken have said that a sustainability declaration, which will be mandatory when you sell your home, or your investment property or any other residence, is a representation. I can imagine some lawyers rubbing their hands together because this is one more area where lawyers can try to set a precedent in court that will allow people to void a contract or, more particularly, will allow people to avoid settling a contract so that they can put pressure on a desperate vendor to lower the price. I think the government has gone completely mad to produce a 56-question declaration of this type. No homeowner will be able to fill out this declaration. Most members of this House could not fill out this declaration. My estimate is that it would cost $500. It is not just 56 questions but 56 amazing questions about how many kilograms of greenhouse gases your home produces. You have to declare this just to put your house on the market—not even to sell your house, but just to put your house on the market. Of the 56 questions, 27— Mr Robertson interjected. Mr Hinchliffe interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! Minister, member for Mermaid Beach, the member for Moggill is on his feet. Please discontinue your banter across this chamber. Dr FLEGG: Of the 56 questions, 27 relate to energy, 12 relate to water, 11 relate to access and only six relate to safety. After you have finished your 56-question questionnaire—and I hope Queenslanders have a good look at what the government has inflicted on them here—you then do a household report card where you have to give your annual household electricity cost. I suppose if you go back and find four electricity bills and add them up, most of us could probably manage to find out what they spent on electricity. But then you have to give your annual household electricity use in kilowatt hours. This is what every Queenslander who sells a property is going to be expected to be able to do and it is a joke. It is an absolute joke that achieves absolutely nothing for the environment. But it gets worse—much worse. You then have to give the approximate kilograms of greenhouse gas emissions from annual household electricity use. We are demanding that people fill out this garbage just to list their house for sale with a real estate agent. The report card goes on. You have to give your household water costs. So you have to go back and find all of your water costs. One thing Queenslanders can be sure of is that the annual cost of their water is going to rise pretty sharply. I had a look at what I had spent money on to retrofit my own home, which would be very consistent with what my constituents in Moggill—and I am sure the constituents of many other members—have tried to do in order to reduce their carbon footprint, to reduce their impact on the environment. Despite the fact that I have ditched my six-cylinder car and a few other things, I was one of the first people in Queensland to get photovoltaic cells to generate electricity. I threw out my storage hot- water system and replaced it with a heat pump. After making some comments publicly that people should look at switching off their drinks fridge in the garage, I have switched off my drinks fridge in the garage. I have replaced all of my light bulbs with energy-efficient ones. I have installed a number of water tanks. I have put a pool blanket on the pool. I have ripped out the electric stove and replaced it with gas. Moggill is not supplied with town gas so I have gas cylinders delivered to me. But now, on top of that, despite attempting to do the right thing, the government wants to hit me—and this is not just me, I am just using my circumstances as an example—with another 500 bucks for a consultant to fill out a form before I can list my house for sale. A whole new industry is going to be built around this bit of nonsense. For many years we have seen the motor vehicle industry advertise for a free safety check for your car. Of course, by offering a free safety check you could obtain some work repairing something, because nobody does something for nothing. Recently, I have noticed many ads offering to check people’s roofs for free. I would like to know how many roofs are found to not need any work done on them. The government is going to create a whole new industry of people offering to fill out this report card but then making representations, particularly, I suspect, to older Queenslanders, such as ‘This is expected of you. The government has put out this form because you really should have these things done. They did not make this form mandatory for nothing.’ Maybe the minister for fair trading ought to be having something to say about this report card. I feel very strongly about this report card. I think it is a quite outrageous imposition on the homeowners and home sellers of Queensland. 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3371

Briefly, in relation to the rest of the bill—and I will be brief because, once I saw the form, that was about it for me—I could not believe that any government could be so stupid as to put this sort of imposition on every single Queenslander when they sell their house. So I did not get very much further than the form. But I noticed a couple of other issues in the bill that I thought I might comment on. One is in relation to noise mitigation around main roads. I think most people would understand that there may be a need for this. Interestingly, if people buy a property on a Queensland main road, there is no obligation on the seller to say whether the house has any noise mitigation. But, of course, there is a lot of confusion because many main roads are not main roads but are council roads. For example, Moggill Road is a state government road to which this provision would apply—until such time it passed under the western freeway at Chapel Hill. From then on, Moggill Road becomes a Brisbane City Council road. My understanding is that, for the person who lives in the last house on Moggill Road before it passes under the western freeway, this provision would apply. For the person who lives in the first house on Moggill Road after it goes under the western freeway, this provision would not apply. Although this provision is supportable, it could certainly be a little bit confusing. The government is concerned that developers who write up covenants and bodies corporate might prevent people from doing certain activities that may be beneficial to the environment. Interestingly, I notice—and the minister may wish to comment on this issue for me—that the installation of solar hot-water systems and photovoltaic cells are covered but heat pumps are not. I may be mistaken on that. There have certainly been developments in my own electorate, which tend to be in large lots, where the covenants have prohibited heat pumps. I must say that I am at a loss to understand why anyone would want to do that. When I asked, the reason I was given was that they make noise. They certainly do not make any more noise than a pool pump or an air conditioner. In fact, in my experience they make less noise. It also raises some fairly significant issues in relation to solar hot water and photovoltaic cells when it comes to community title schemes. The roof on which those structures are to be installed belongs to the body corporate. What area would belong to what unit owner for the purpose of his solar hot-water system or his photovoltaic cells? Could one unit owner cover the whole roof or a large portion of the roof of a building? There are issues relating to liability for bodies corporate in relation to that. Perhaps the minister would like to make some comments in relation to that. I also notice comments in relation to minimum floor areas. This is a pretty touchy subject with a lot of people, particularly in light of some of the overcrowding issues that have arisen in Brisbane with overseas students and the like which have been commented on by the Brisbane City Council. I would not mind hearing from the minister his comments in relation to minimum floor areas, which obviously have the potential to increase the occupancy of certain properties. In essence, whilst the opposition is supportive of the thrust of many parts of the bill, we think the imposition of this sustainability declaration on every homeowner in Queensland when they come to list that property for sale is outrageous. Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (12.41 pm): I rise to speak on the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009, with the major part of this bill seeking to amend the Building Act 1975 in relation to sustainable building practices. The amendments to the Building Act 1975 will alter several areas. They will in the first instance, and of main concern, bring in the mandatory completion of a sustainability declaration at the point of sale for houses, town houses and units. This is of great concern to me as there are major implications from this particular amendment which I believe the government has not fully considered. I will deal with those implications later in my speech. The amendment that is referred to as ‘ban the banners’ addresses stopping bodies corporate and developers from restricting the use of sustainable and affordable design features such as light coloured roofs, single garages in smaller houses and solar hot-water systems. In my briefing I was assured by departmental officers that, in this particular area, where bodies corporate look to preserve the amenity, integrity and quality of their estate or building they will not suffer because of this legislation. Of particular concern to me, due to my local government background, are the instances of people wanting to make a two-car garage a one-car garage, where obviously the space for the second car is turned into an extension of their house in contravention of the local government planning rules. That matter will be have to be dealt with by legislation. I believe that we will see enormous litigation arising out of the capacity for individuals in these situations to attempt their own steps which they may see as a betterment as opposed to the overall community betterment which bodies corporate are enshrined to protect. That is why we have bodies corporate. That is my shadow portfolio responsibility, as the minister would be aware. We have these bodies corporate to protect the 348,000 people’s homes that are under this group titled managed living. It is important that we do not give individuals the capacity to override the majority of the residents in that community housing area. Another amendment looks at the impact of noise in transport corridors by expanding the role of the Queensland Development Code to improve the current processes and insert a new part relating to this. We support this as a positive measure in terms of alerting potential occupants to future changes to transport in the area. 3372 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009

The final major amendment in the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 addresses the fact that development increases the role of building surveying technicians. This will allow for a definite direction and a solid career path for building surveying technicians and will hopefully address the shortage of building certifiers in the building industry in Queensland. The change to the Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002 in this bill is to set up a Plumbing Industry Council and disband the current Plumbers and Drainers Board. The acts stated below will be amended in the changes to the Building Act 1975 to be enacted: the Body Corporate Community Management Act 1997; the Land Title Act 1994; the Mixed Use Development Act 1993; the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000—which I am very concerned about as I will refer to later; the Sustainable Planning Act 2009; the Integrated Resort Development Act 1987—developed for the fabulous Gold Coast and its many wonderful integrated resort developments; the Registration of Plans (H.S.P. (Nominees) Pty. Limited) Enabling Act 1984—recognising that that would have been the Eddie Kornhauser act; the Sanctuary Cove Resort Act 1985; the South Bank Corporation Act 1989; and the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994. The Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990 is amended in this bill to allow for the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal to receive advice from assessors when hearing reviews under part 9A. The Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 will be amended to allow for cats and dogs under eight weeks to be microchipped. I have spoken on amendments to this act previously, and I agree with microchipping and other changes. However, I am concerned in terms of allowing microchipping on a lot of these smaller puppies under eight weeks of age because, except for rottweilers and bigger breeds of dogs, once you get down to chihuahuas and smaller breeds then we have to be careful because at six and seven weeks they are very little puppies. I speak from experience as I have sold approximately 6,000 in my day. The amendment to the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 is to require decision notices completed by a building certifier to state the classification of the building under the Building Code of Australia. I am amazed that this is not in place already, to be honest. I would have thought that would be part of the necessary criteria for them to certify under the current legislation. As part of my shadow portfolio responsibilities I would like to focus on amendments to the Building Act which have consequential amendments to the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 and the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000, PAMDA. The Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 is amended to make sure that community management statements do not include any provisions that are irrelevant and have no effect under the Building Act. Clause 50 of the bill addresses the issue of by-laws under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997. It states that by-laws must not be oppressive and unreasonable and must have regard to the interests of all owners and occupiers. This is important and goes a long way to protect owners and residents of community living facilities. Community and unit living is one of the fastest growing types of housing in Queensland and, of course, in the years to come I think we will see even greater representation in community living areas. By-laws in body corporate management are critical to ensure a harmonious living environment and they must be adhered to. The Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 is amended in this bill. Clause 72 explores the issue of availability of pertinent information relating to sustainable housing measures for the impending sale of houses, town houses and residential units. A sustainable housing declaration will be mandatory for all sales of residential property in Queensland. This amendment is stated as clause 73 of the bill. From my observation I believe this will open up an absolute minefield of litigation. Although the sustainability declaration is not part of the contract, it will create the loopholes necessary for the legal fraternity to use their wonderfully educated experience of finding loopholes to get out of contracts. I refer the minister to a letter I have received from the REIQ. It disappoints me greatly that the REIQ did not have the opportunity to see the final draft on these matters. It was consulted in the initial stages, but when it came to the final draft of the bill it was left completely in the dark. That led the REIQ to write this letter. It states— Our concern relates to the insertion into PAMDA of proposed s 373H—“No right to terminate contract for publishing or giving declaration”. As drafted, it reads ‘The buyer under a relevant contract for the sale of the residential dwelling can not terminate the contract only because the declaration is incomplete or contains information that is false or misleading.” ‘Relevant’ being the emphasised word. It goes on— The provision raises two issues. The first relates to whether a buyer of a residential property that is not a relevant contract (i.e. a contract formed on a sale by auction) as defined in s 364 is prohibited from terminating the contract. The proposed amendment specifically relates to ‘relevant contract’, so by inference, the section does not apply to other forms of contract. This could lead to a technical breach, where a buyer seeks to escape a contract formed at auction due to non- compliance with the sustainability declaration obligations. 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3373

Mr Deputy Speaker, I can see that your very attuned legal mind is coming to grips with the legal ramifications of what the REIQ has put forward. It assures me that they are put forward in the best interests of giving certainty to real estate contracts. As we have seen before in this House—in June of this year—because of the drafting of the legislation and the interpretation of a very clever solicitor from up Rockhampton way, we had to put special legislation through this House to amend the loophole that he found in the legislation that would have enabled everyone who had entered into a prebuilding contract to escape those contracts because the market had fallen. That would have done incredible damage to the real estate industry in Queensland and would have absolutely crashed the market. Of course, we were saved from that by that amending legislation that we put through in July. I do not think there is any secret that if one solicitor moves into town he normally goes broke. If two solicitors move into town, they make a fortune arguing with each other. That is what I can see developing out of this legal minefield that we are now treading through with this mandatory sustainability declaration. What will it achieve? It is based on the Canberra legislation, as we know. The stars are the definitive guides for what type of sustainable and environmentally friendly house a person has in Canberra. Will it lead to people asking, ‘We have a three-star house. Will it sell better if it is a five-star house?’ Will this eventually lead to the requirement for people to have a three-star house or a five-star house to go forward into a sale? I note the minister shakes his head and says, ‘No, that is not the intention.’ With all of this wonderful legislation that we end up with there is always a toe in the water that leads in another direction. This mandatory sustainable declaration will in no way improve the sustainability of these houses. All it will do is identify such things as there is no insulation in the walls or in the ceiling or the number of stars it has. Because the seller of the property has to provide this declaration, the seller will have an opportunity to fill out the form to the best of their knowledge and say, ‘Yes, I have ticked that we are totally complete with water-saving shower heads and everything is up to a wonderful sustainable standard.’ The purchaser then comes in and buys the house on that basis and then—surprise, surprise—finds out that the seller has made a few mistakes in their declaration. Is the minister telling me that the purchaser will not then go to see his local friendly solicitor—one of those wonderful firms around the country that succeeds very well on the basis of charging fees only in the event of a win—who will take the case on a no-win, no-fee basis? We will see them coming out of the woodwork to look at this legislation to get people out of contracts. I have no doubt that what we are doing here is further widening the legal minefields. I have no doubt that there will be an extra cost in terms of house prices, as the member for Moggill alluded to, at a time when we are calling out left, right and centre about housing affordability. People will be coming out in droves saying, ‘This is mandatory legislation. You must have a sustainable declaration form and I am the man to do it for you.’ They will be doorknocking houses throughout the suburbs, particularly those of little old ladies. That is why the fair trading minister should be in the chamber to have input into this matter. There will be people out there saying, ‘It will cost you $600, but I can do it for you today for $200. I can fill out your 56-question form for you right here and now.’ I looked at the form, and I found it intimidating to fill out the number of questions relating to power matters and lighting matters— Mr Messenger: It’s ridiculous—absolutely ridiculous. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! Member for Burnett, you may well be on the speaking list and have your say, but we do not want to hear it now, thank you. The member for Mermaid Beach is on his feet. Mr STEVENS: It may well be intended, as the good officers of the minister’s department advise me, that anyone can fill it out by themselves. But the fact of the matter is that I found it intimidating on my first read. The older people in Stafford will be really upset when they go to sell their house and find out that they have to fill out this form. Some little old lady will be frightened into paying $200 today or $600 later. That will be the burgeoning trade to be in. The onus has been placed on to the seller—the little old lady in Stafford—to fill out this form, yet the onus for completing pest and white ant inspections is placed on the buyers of a property. What happens in terms of sustainable practices when the following situation occurs? The buyers get an accredited—I am speaking from experience here—white ant inspector to inspect a house which is then ticked off as having no white ants. However, when the people move into the house they can hear the chewing at night but the white ant inspector did not pick it up. They complain to the Building Services Authority and the inspector gets a $2,000 fine and a smack on the wrist. However, the purchaser of the house—and he is coming to see me next Monday—is still left with a $30,000 to $40,000 bill to fix the damage from the white ants that the inspector never picked up. These intrinsically great ideas of enforcing, mandating and legislating more responsibility on to either party always turn sour. This is not about achieving a more sustainable house for sale; it is about achieving spin to the green movement that we are doing something in terms of sustainable planning to help costs. By annoying people, by getting these little old ladies in Stafford to fill out these forms in order to sell their house before they move into the retirement home— 3374 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009

Mr Hinchliffe: Are they the only people who ever sell a house, are they? Mr STEVENS: You could not sell in Stafford. I understand that their representation has a fair bit to do with that. I do understand the need to improve homes for sustainability purposes, and we in the LNP support that. But that should be compared to the implications and the costs for the homebuyer. The carrot approach has always worked better than the stick approach. Perhaps a discount on stamp duty for different levels of sustainable housing is something that the minister could look at to encourage the public to make their houses more sustainable. In other words, the government could say, ‘If you make your house more sustainable, we will stop squeezing you with as many taxes as we can when you go to sell your house.’ Sitting suspended from 1.00 pm to 2.30 pm. Debate, on motion of Mr Stevens, adjourned.

REPORT

Auditor-General Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Farmer): I have to report that Mr Speaker has received from the Auditor-General a report titled Report to Parliament No. 8 for 2009: results of audits at 31 October 2009. Mr Speaker has also received an executive summary brochure for report No. 8. I table the report and the brochure for the information of members. Tabled paper: Auditor-General of Queensland, Report to Parliament No. 8 for 2009, titled ‘Results of audits at 31 October 2009’ [1350]. Tabled paper: Auditor-General of Queensland, Executive Summary for Report to Parliament No. 8 for 2009, titled ‘Results of audits at 31 October 2009’ [1351].

BUILDING AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed, on motion of Mr Hinchliffe— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr STEVENS: I must admit to losing some of my momentum in the short interlude that we have had. I need a bit of pumping up from the other side and away I will go again. The reality of the matter is that we have this legislation before the House that proposes to be green and friendly and with a sustainable planning declaration that will improve the sustainability of our community. It is a nonsense. It is a furphy. It is spin over substance. Quite clearly, if the minister and the government were determined to put in place measures that increased sustainability, they would have looked to proactive measures that encouraged sustainability and offered incentives for people to move in those directions. Did you hear Rudd saying, ‘Thou shall have this declaration’? No, he put out an incentive to get your roof insulated and there were all these other sorts of things to encourage people to go to more sustainable living. This is a minefield that is in its development stages in terms of the justice system. The courts will end up full and we will be back here considering legislation to try to deal with these matters as a result of this flawed legislation, because this declaration form is full of uncertainty and full of absolute spin that the Labor Party loves to sell to boost its credentials. I cannot agree with this part of the legislation, although we support the bill, because it is a giant leap into a deep and dark legal abyss. I join with my colleagues in the opposition in voting against the introduction of this sustainability declaration, whilst I support the bill. Mr RYAN (Morayfield—ALP) (2.33 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. I was going to make only a short contribution in the debate of this bill until I heard members opposite start bashing the virtues of the sustainability declaration. Who would have thought someone would go out there and bash the provision of information to consumers? Who would have thought someone would go out there and bash a wonderful concept that will provide information to consumers? Who would have thought the member for Mermaid Beach would attack the little old ladies from the minister’s electorate of Stafford by saying that they would not be able to understand the form? What a patronising approach to say that little old ladies cannot understand a form. It is an insult to them and an insult to the little old ladies in the minister’s electorate of Stafford. When you actually look at the form— Mr Gibson: Get your magnifying glass out for the size six font. 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3375

Mr RYAN: Just like the fonts of the LNP membership form, eh? The shadow minister raised a few concerns about a couple of the questions on the sustainability declaration. The first question is: ‘Energy equivalence rating if known.’ I repeat: ‘if known’. So if you do not know it, do not fill it in. It is as simple as that. It cannot get any easier than that. It states, ‘Energy equivalence rating if known.’ If you do not know it, do not put it in. Mr Gibson: That’s good education. That’s great education. Mr RYAN: It seemed to be very difficult for the shadow minister to actually come to that conclusion. The shadow minister also had a few problems with the potential savings that may be reported in the sustainability declaration. He found it difficult to understand that there would be more than a 100 per cent saving on the average electricity bill. One of the questions asks if you have solar power. I know people in my electorate who have solar panels on their roof and who get money back from their electricity generator because they produce more electricity through their solar panels than they actually consume. So it is possible to have more than a 100 per cent saving. Mr Gibson: How much money are they getting from the government? Mr RYAN: Well, that is not the concern you raised. The concern you raised was that you could not work out how they could get more than 100 per cent. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Farmer): Order! Members will direct their comments through the chair. Mr RYAN: I think some of the criticisms directed at the sustainability declaration are unfounded and quite patronising to a lot of people out there who will sit down and think, ‘Isn’t it a good idea to be providing this information to people? Isn’t it a good idea that people can take ownership not only about sustainability but about the cost of consuming energy, water and all those other aspects associated with the overall running of a household?’ I think it is a great thing and I am pleased that the government has taken a step forward to not only providing information to consumers but making sure that consumers can take ownership of the costs associated with running a household. I feel that all those statements made by members opposite about the virtues of the sustainability declaration are quite unfounded and quite insulting, particularly to the little old ladies who live in the minister’s electorate of Stafford. Ms Spence: Or any little old ladies, Mr RYAN: Or any little old ladies. I thank the Leader of the House. I want to talk about two particular issues. The first issue is to do with the amendments related to koala conservation that are contained within this bill. We have heard some recent announcements from the Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability about what this state Labor government will be doing to protect koalas in key conservation areas, and it is quite positive news. As we all know, koala populations in South-East Queensland and in particular in the Morayfield state electorate have been declining for a number of years. These progressive measures which the Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability has mentioned—and one particular measure, which is the compulsory acquisition powers for koala habitat outside the urban footprint which is contained in this amending bill—will provide particular protections for this vulnerable species. The package of measures recently announced by the Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability will protect priority koala habitat, rehabilitate habitat impacted by development and create new habitat for future koala populations. Governments can do something or nothing, but of course doing something is better than doing nothing. Again, it is this state Labor government which is doing something. It is this state Labor government which is leading policy development on environmental protection in Queensland. Unfortunately, we have all seen where the opposition stands on issues of environmental protection. In respect of land-clearing bans, opposition members oppose them. In respect of protections for the Great Barrier Reef, opposition members oppose them. In respect of these new conservation measures to protect koalas, I have not heard the shadow minister for climate change and sustainability come out and support them. What can we assume? We can assume that, again, they do not support the environment and they do not support conservation for koalas. Mr GIBSON: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I find the remarks that the member has made to be misleading and offensive, and I ask that they be withdrawn. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member to withdraw his comments. Mr RYAN: I withdraw. The silence from the shadow minister for climate change and sustainability indicates where the opposition stands on issues to do with the environment. Only this state Labor government is standing up for the environment. Only this state Labor government is doing something to protect koalas. I take this opportunity to commend the Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability. I also take this opportunity to commend the hard work and dedication of a local koala care group in my electorate—the Moreton Bay Koala Rescue group—which has been advocating wildlife issues in our community for a long time. I commend them for that admirable work. 3376 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009

I would also like to speak about the transport noise corridor amendments contained within the bill. This is very important to the people of the Morayfield state electorate, because one boundary of the Morayfield state electorate is the Bruce Highway. A lot of traffic and a lot of noise is generated from that roadway. Members of the Morayfield state electorate will be very interested to see there are some great amendments in this bill about transport noise corridors. The Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill supports the introduction of an innovative new building code to make the approval and construction of residential buildings located near major transport corridors more streamlined and consistent. Noise such as that from traffic can affect the sleep patterns and general health and wellbeing of residents along noise corridors. With intensifying urban development, it is vital that we take precautions to protect the health and amenity of Queensland residents. This bill supports the introduction of a new building code which will ensure buildings near major transport routes such as major roads and railways are constructed in a consistent manner to achieve adequate levels of noise reduction for occupants. Currently there is no existing state-wide building standard to manage noise impacts generated from outside the building. The state government determines whether there should be any additional building requirements for residential buildings near key transport routes on a case-by-case basis by placing covenants on property titles. Where a building application is made for a property that is the subject of such a covenant, the applicant must have an acoustic report prepared. The government then assesses and conditions each individual application. This process increases time and cost for the final building approvals and provides little up-front or consistent design direction for developers. Industry consultation during August 2008 showed that there was strong support for developing a new code to mitigate the impacts of transport noise and streamline the existing approval process. The proposed code will set clear and consistent standards for residential buildings in transport noise corridors, where noise levels have the potential to affect residents’ health. Transport noise corridors are defined as areas of land located up to a maximum distance of 250 metres from certain local government roads, state controlled roads and railways that are affected by minimum transport noise levels of around 58 decibels. As an example, a person standing next to Sandgate Road, which receives approximately 33,000 vehicles per day, could be expected to experience noise levels of around 77,000 decibels. The code will provide certainty for developers as well as reduce delays and holding costs. This will deliver appropriate residential developments for a growing Queensland on the ground sooner and with a reliable level of amenity. The Queensland government is providing leadership in addressing the impacts of transport noise in our increasingly urbanised cities. The proposed mandatory code will be a first for Australia. The code will specifically accept minimum reduction levels of noise coming from the outside of the building. These reductions in noise levels will be able to be achieved through a combination of building design and standard materials. The code was specifically designed to minimise the need for expensive or unusual materials. For example, the code outlines the levels of noise reduction that can be achieved by using generic building material such as masonry walls, solid core doors and standard thicknesses of glazing. The code will apply only to new residential buildings such as houses, town houses, units and other accommodation buildings like hotels, motels and hostels. Buildings of these types that undergo major renovations will also need to comply where practicable. Building certifiers will be able to assess plans and approve construction of buildings if the proposal meets the requirements of the code. This will allow for faster development time frames, and in practice it means that work can begin on the ground without the need for expensive reports to be compiled and considered. This will provide economic benefits from greater developer certainty and clearer investment returns as well as cost savings from more streamlined and transparent building assessment processes. In order to achieve consistent standards across the state and simplify the process for local governments currently tackling the issue of transport noise in residential developments, the bill will give local governments the ability to designate areas near certain roads as transport noise corridors to which the new code will apply. This will be an entirely voluntary process for local governments and is designed to help them manage urban growth. The government will also be able to designate land near certain state controlled roads and railways as transport noise corridors. The bill gives the Department of Transport and Main Roads the power to place administrative notations on property titles and to notify potential purchasers that the property is noise affected and subject to the proposed code. Consolidated information for all designated transport corridors will be provided to the relevant local governments to be noted in planning schemes. Along with notations on property titles, this will enable easy identification of transport noise corridors by building certifiers and prospective purchasers and developers so that new residential developments within identified corridors are constructed to meet the requirements of the proposed code. The government is also developing a user-friendly website whereby free searches can be conducted 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3377 based on the addresses or lot plan numbers to determine if the property is located within a designated transport noise corridor. Developers and potential purchasers will be able to enter the property details and instantly find out whether the new code applies, including what the requirements will be for noise reduction. Properties which have existing covenants will also be subject to the proposed code. Once the proposed code comes into effect, there will no longer be a need for government involvement in the building application process to ensure noise attenuation requirements are complied with in covenanted properties. In summary, this bill will support the implementation of a new building code for residential buildings located in transport noise corridors and give state and local government authorities the power to designate certain roads and railways to which the code will apply. This will ensure a consistent standard for noise reduction is set across the state to help achieve indoor noise levels that do not impact upon the health and wellbeing of Queensland residents. By streamlining the development process, the bill will reduce costs, uncertainty and time associated with developments of this nature. I commend the minister, his staff and departmental staff on their hard work in bringing this bill to the parliament. This bill delivers on a range of election commitments of this state Labor government and will effect a number of key environmental building and development priorities for the people of the Morayfield state electorate and, more broadly, the people of Queensland. I commend the bill to the House. Mr MOORHEAD (Waterford—ALP) (2.46 pm): I rise to support the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. I congratulate the minister for bringing this bill into the House. This bill tackles two key issues in housing—housing affordability and housing sustainability. As we can see from this bill, those two concepts are inherently linked. I want to deal in detail with two specific matters—namely, the unnecessary restrictions historically placed on property owners and transport noise corridor issues. Before I do that, I want to take up an interjection made by the member for Mermaid Beach during the shadow minister’s speech. When criticising the sustainability form required to be filled out by sellers of properties—and I do not know whether Hansard would have got this—the member for Mermaid Beach called out ‘caveat emptor’, saying that it is up to the buyer to beware. In this situation what happens with more affordable housing is that people are convinced to buy houses that, while cheaper up-front, will put on them energy and water costs for the life of that home that are unreasonable. This means that when people enter into a contract they can do so fully informed and with their eyes open about not only the capital cost of buying a property but also the ongoing cost of running that property over the years to come. This is about protecting consumers and giving them an opportunity to make that decision on a fair and transparent basis. The scaremongering put forward by the LNP on this provision is outrageous. As we went down the list from the shadow minister to the member for Moggill to the member for Mermaid Beach, the outrage seemed to continue to grow. By the end of the speaking list, I am sure we will hear predictions of the collapse of the Queensland housing market. The member for Moggill is putting about this proposal that people will be paying $500 to consultants to fill out the form. The reality is that in almost all cases the home owner can either fill it out themselves or do it with the assistance of their property agent because most people do sell through a property agent. The LNP continues to make this up as it goes along. There is no basis for what those opposite are saying. It is quite a simple form. I am sure the member for Brisbane Central will deal with how she has applied this to her own circumstances. I know that real estate agents who do this day in and day out will be adequately skilled to perform that function. Unfortunately, in recent years there have been some market failures in the property industry with the declining diversity of housing choices. Profitability for the housing and development sector has often seen a focus on higher end housing and less diversity of options for people looking to buy more affordable housing. One of the ways this has happened is through covenants. While covenants can be used sensibly to maintain the amenity of a suburb, there is no justification for some covenants, particularly those requiring ensuites, a minimum number of square metres for housing and double garages. This is another layer of red tape that has been put on to builders on top of building code requirements and town planning requirements. This means that the regulation of those matters will be left to the more appropriate building code and town planning requirements. The Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill will provide important benefits for Queensland residents in terms of housing affordability. Up until the recent global financial crisis, housing affordability across Queensland had been diminishing. Whether housing is affordable generally relates to what a prospective purchaser can readily borrow compared to the cost of a suburban detached dwelling. A key contributing factor to housing affordability is the price of housing. In Brisbane, median housing prices have increased significantly from $195,000 in 2002 to $487,500 in 2008. 3378 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009

The government is focused on reducing pressures that have the potential to cause excessive increases in housing prices. The aim is to enable more Queenslanders to realise the Australian dream of owning their own home. This bill includes important measures that supplement the government’s housing affordability policy. The bill delivers on the ‘ban the banners’ commitment which the government gave at the recent election. This will stop body corporate by-laws and developer covenants from banning energy efficient building elements such as lighter coloured roofs, window tinting and solar hot-water systems. Sustainable building features not only reduce our carbon footprint but reduce living costs for householders as they provide significant ongoing savings due to reduced energy and water bills. By giving Queenslanders the freedom to use these features in their homes the bill will provide the opportunity for residents to save money on their ongoing household expenses. The ‘ban the banners’ policy will also prevent by-laws and covenants from requiring certain design features such as minimum size floor areas and a minimum number of garages and ensuites. New covenants will also be banned from requiring the completion of landscaping, fencing and driveways within a certain time frame or before a home is occupied. All of these factors can impact significantly on the footprint of a home as well as the cost of purchasing a home. For many years developers of residential estates have included building covenants which form part of a contract for sale for allotments. These covenants force homeowners to meet a one-size-fits-all standard. This type of house generally has a floor area of over 250 square metres which may be larger than the homeowner requires, with bedrooms and bathrooms that are infrequently used. In many cases, homeowners end up heating or cooling larger areas or extra rooms thus increasing costs. Not only can developer covenants currently restrict things such as the minimum size of houses to be built, a minimum number of garages, bedrooms and bathrooms; but they can also require other design features such as minimum roof pitches and the rendering of external brickwork. These requirements can significantly increase construction costs, placing a larger and unnecessary debt burden on new homeowners. This practice affects housing affordability across Queensland. The issue is highlighted even further where first homeowners are involved. In many instances, the costs in meeting the conditions of covenants exceed the first homeowners grant and the cost of servicing higher debt levels will stay with families for many years. By providing potential purchasers with more choice about the types of features they can use in their home design, the ‘ban the banners’ election commitment will have a positive impact on housing affordability through a potential reduction in costs associated with the construction and ongoing operation of a home. The benefits of this initiative for a young family are clear. Homeowners who may have otherwise been affected by covenants and by-laws will be free to choose how many bedrooms they need, whether to have an ensuite or a single garage and whether or not their home design should have the garage on the western side. Research on this matter displays a construction cost difference of around $24,900 between a three-bedroom one-storey house and a four-bedroom one-storey house. That is a difference of approximately $38,400 between a four-bedroom one-storey house with one bathroom and a four- bedroom one-storey house with two bathrooms as well as a difference of about $8,970 between a six by three-metre single garage and a six-metre standard double garage imposed on homeowners. Queenslanders should have the ability to make choices on these matters based on their individual needs and enjoy the associate savings. The ‘ban the banners’ initiative will complement the Queensland government’s Housing Affordability Strategy, which was announced in 2007 to help increase housing affordability. The strategy seeks to provide better access to appropriate housing that will assist individuals, families and communities and contribute to the overarching social and economic wellbeing of the state. The ‘ban the banners’ initiative will mean homeowners will be able to choose a range of home sizes and designs that suit community needs not a developer’s rules. As part of the Housing Affordability Strategy, the government has already achieved some significant results. These include the delivery of the Urban Land Development Authority, more efficient planning and development systems, improved land supply for development and enhanced monitoring of the supply of land and housing. The strategy has also achieved simplified, standard and transparent infrastructure charging and reduced stamp duty contributions for first home buyers. The ‘ban the banners’ measure will complement the success of the Queensland Housing Affordability Strategy and provide Queenslanders with greater freedom of choice to select features that suit their budget and lifestyle when it comes to building their home. Finally, I want to deal with the provisions around transport noise corridors. The Waterford electorate is fortunate when it comes to transport infrastructure. We have rail lines, the Pacific Motorway, the Logan Motorway and major arterial roads. Often the burden borne by local residents is 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3379 the noise of that transport. This bill amends the provisions to allow the building code to better deal with the effects of noise during the development process to ensure that we can mitigate the burden of transport noise upon homeowners. This bill will designate transport noise corridors and include in the building approval process a requirement for noise attenuation features in new residential buildings. I have a number of residents in Loganholme and Tanah Merah area who talk to me regularly about road noise from the Logan Motorway. Retrofitting solutions to deal with road noise is a difficult process. That is why I am glad that in future road planning and in future planning approval processes the government will ensure that it can prevent residents being put in that situation. I commend the bill to the House. Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (2.57 pm): I rise today to make a contribution to the debate on the Building and Other Legislation Member Bill 2009, which proposes amendments to a number of acts relevant to sustainable building practices and other building matters. I will address these individually. This bill proposes to introduce mandatory completion of a sustainability declaration at the point of sale for houses, town houses and units. The bill also states that this will achieve the following outcomes by increasing community awareness of sustainable building features and thereby over time help to improve the sustainability of our community. I believe Queenslanders are already environmentally conscious, with many taking advantage of both former coalition initiatives and Brisbane City Council and Gold Coast City Council initiatives. These initiatives have been taken up by many homeowners to combat the increasing costs of things like deregulation of electricity in Queensland which has increased since the Beattie-Bligh government promised us that electricity would be cheaper under this model. Combined with the increase in the price of water, already mooted by the takeover of water assets from the councils, Queenslanders are now looking at a further increase threatened by the Premier in her justification for the Rudd government’s slap in the face to wasted moneys spent on a dam at Traveston that no-one wanted. The Premier should not have been surprised about this given that this is now the second dam that Kevin Rudd has stopped in Queensland. If the first dam, the Wolffdene Dam, had been built in 1993, many of our environmental sustainability concerns in this state could well have been averted. Eco-friendly homes are a way forward and even vendors renovating properties already include sustainable features in their homes in order to increase the value of their properties at the point of sale. Whilst the proposed sustainability declaration may well provide valuable information about the features of an existing home and its efficiency features, the Liberal National Party believes that this form should not be mandatory and indeed has the potential to open a minefield of litigation, loopholes for vendors to renege on contracts and yet another raft of red tape for vendors, many of whom may be elderly or unable to grasp the legal ramifications of this declaration, and will lead to angst and heartache for many. If this form is to be completed correctly, it will lead to increased charges for vendors by either having to have a solicitor complete the form correctly or give rise to a whole new occupation of inspectors who will undoubtedly charge for their services. The declaration may indeed convince potential buyers to purchase one property over another to save installing environmentally friendly appliances and alterations to a home at a later date. However, this should be a choice for the vendor, not a mandatory requirement which has the potential to price many out of the housing market and into the already overburdened public housing sector. In my electorate of Mudgeeraba there are 42 empty homes in Springbrook which are in an environmentally sensitive area that I am sure could have been sold with one of these declarations to the state government instead of being left to go to rack and ruin and rented out to alleviate the shortage of houses, whether environmentally sustainable or not. Whilst the Liberal National Party has previously articulated support for the concepts in this bill, the method proposed is highly concerning. This is a poorly thought out outcome of a green election commitment which massively increases green tape for vendors. The Liberal National Party intends to oppose the clause on sustainability declarations. The second portion of this bill that I seek to address today is the introduction of new sections that support the implementation of a new part of the Queensland Development Code to improve the current processes for mitigating the impacts of noise in identified transport corridors. The Department of Transport and Main Roads currently requires noise attenuation features in new residential buildings that are close to state controlled roads using a system of statutory covenants between the department of main roads and property owners of noise affected lands. The intention of these notices is to inform property owners and potential purchasers that a property is affected by road or rail traffic noise and may be subject to additional building assessment provisions. The notices will be identified during title searches when a property is being sold. The notices will replace the use of statutory covenants, which were previously used by the former DTMR, to ensure new residential developments were designed and constructed in a manner to mitigate road traffic noise. This is intended to streamline development applications impacted by some noise from some transport corridors and uses a system of statutory covenants between DTMR and noise affected land. This applies only to state controlled roads and some railways. 3380 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009

This is a particular issue of great importance to me and the electorate of Mudgeeraba. My electorate has the M1 motorway right through the middle of the majority of the suburbs. One of the biggest complaints that I receive is that this government or indeed developers do not consider sound barriers before, during and after construction of roads and interchanges. Residents in the northern end of Highland Park, previously in the electorate of Mudgeeraba, had to wait 18 months following the completion of the northbound off-ramp at Nielsens Road before sound barriers were installed. Finally after long delays the barriers were installed, only to find that the two sections of Hinkler Drive which are local council roads were to be joined together which means that B-doubles, trying to avoid the Mudgeeraba car park gridlock on the M1, would now be travelling down their local street. The sound barriers are now rendered ineffective and useless because their original intention was to stop traffic noise from the M1 but now the traffic is travelling on the other side of the barriers. One would think that it would make sense when planning upgrades of state roads that noise mitigation for now and for any future upgrades would be taken into consideration. Whilst I do understand that these barriers are expensive to install and then move at a later date, would it not make more sense to put the barriers where you know they will be needed not just for now but into the future? Until recently the Varsity Lakes interchange did not include sound mitigation and it is only after extensive lobbying of Main Roads by me and locals that sound mitigation is actually now being considered. Residents are putting up with machinery at 3 am in the morning working on the interchange during construction. Whilst they are understanding of the need for this to occur to ensure that traffic gridlock on the western side of the interchange does not continue, we were aghast that it took until now for sound barriers to be considered. Inappropriate development next to state roads is also an issue, and developers need to take this into consideration whilst planning these new estates. This bill will assist in addressing these concerns. A further example of this was the sale of properties east of the M1 in Reedy Creek where a development was placed next to an existing motocross track. It is my understanding that these blocks of land were less expensive than those further away from the track and that the owners were also of the understanding that this track would be moved at a later date. Confusion still abounds on this issue, as the lease for the track is with the Gold Coast City Council and has been there for over 30 years. Whilst I understand the concerns of those residents who bought their properties in good faith, this is akin to purchasing a block of land next to a railway line and then lobbying to later have the track route changed. This bill will inform property owners and potential purchasers that a property is affected by road or rail traffic noise and will be identified during the title searches when a property is being sold. This is an issue that I endorse and which would have alleviated many concerns from residents who have properties on the M1 and other state controlled roads in my electorate. In summary, I support the bill for noise attenuation but I do not support the mandatory sustainable statutory declaration, which has many ramifications for vendors. Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—LNP) (3.04 pm): I am happy to rise to address the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. I note the comments of the shadow minister, and I certainly support his views on this. The concept behind this bill is a good one. There is an awareness right across the state that we must do our best to lesson our impact on the environment. In this the Sunshine State we should be turning to solar to reduce our reliance on power supplies, which are costing the average Queenslander more and more each year. However, up-front costs are certainly very difficult for many people to meet even though it will save money down the track. These are the problems that people encounter when they are looking to do what they know they would like to do and perhaps what they should do. There is always that up-front cost that becomes a major stumbling block. However, I certainly share the concerns of previous speakers with regard to the sustainability declaration that has been attached to this bill. At the end of the day, this declaration becomes a legal document. Because it is signed, it is a legal document. A seller will be ticking a box to say that they are aware that it is an offence under the Building Act 1975 to provide misleading or false information. Many sellers will have a concern when they fill in and sign this declaration that they may be inadvertently—not deliberately but inadvertently—filling in some of this information that they may not know the answer to. As I read the declaration, I could not tick that box for my home in terms of knowing the answers to every one of these questions. Let us say that I am in Brisbane and I want to put my house in North Queensland, a thousand kilometres away, on the market. If I am to fill in this form totally, specifically and correctly, I would have to travel that 1,000 kilometres to go and count the number of light bulbs that the house has or I may not remember how many bedrooms have air conditioning, particularly if it is a rental property. I am sorry to say but there is a lack of common sense when it comes to thinking through how this declaration will work. I was quite intrigued by some of the comments that the member for Morayfield made. He said, ‘If you don’t know, you don’t have to fill it in.’ In any case, you still have to sign it and it is still mandatory. How efficient is that? How official is that? This will cause major stress to many folk who want to sell their property. My elderly parents would be confronted by this, and it would certainly put an onus on them. With regard to comments that the real estate agent should fill it in, if the real estate agent makes a 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3381 mistake who is responsible? You are because you sign it, not the real estate agent. I would have difficulty filling this declaration in with the correct information without being in that house at that point in time, and that is quite reasonable because there is no provision that says that you have to be in residence when you sell that home. The seller still has a legal responsibility, and that is certainly the LNP’s concern. This bill is perhaps well intentioned, but it creates a nightmare for homeowners and the construction industry. At the end of the day, it will increase the cost of housing. I refer to our heritage homes—the Queenslanders that so many of our residents adore. They will be greatly impacted, because many of them do not have the features that are mentioned in this document. This morning one woman said to me—and her husband is a builder—‘I do not think our house complies with almost any of these things.’ That is a concern. It is a very judgemental document for those houses that have been acceptable houses for many years. Right now this state does not need further regulatory conditions that will increase housing affordability. The concept of sustainability in our homes is great. Of course it is. I have no doubt that the majority of Queenslanders who can afford it are looking towards making their homes sustainable. But, with the speed that this bill has come before the House, there has been very little time for this section of it to be refined and to be thought out properly. The bill was only available on the internet yesterday. So how many people have looked at it and worked out its practicality? Until this declaration can be properly refined, it should not be made mandatory. Too many Queenslanders are already struggling with the costs involved in owning the great Australian dream—their home. Now, they will have not only more red tape but also green tape—green tape that has come into being because of a green election commitment made by the Bligh Labor government. This is yet another green election commitment that is going to further burden Queenslanders with regulations and increased housing costs. I am completely against this poorly thought out imposition on homeowners. I hope the government takes a little more time to refine this particular section of the bill. I note the provisions in the bill that ban restrictive covenants imposed by developers that dictate the size of the home, the colour of the roof and what materials can be used in the home. These are good provisions and we certainly support them. Some housing developments have banned solar panels because they are too unsightly and would ruin the roofscape of the area. Certainly, those provisions contain a great deal of common sense. These restrictive practices are often added to the cost of the homes as they are often required to have double garages, a certain number of bedrooms, bathrooms and so forth. Certainly, those restrictions create a lack of sustainability in those houses. From a sustainability perspective, we are seeing a move away from larger homes to smaller homes. Although some of the provisions of this bill are to be applauded, there are many that could have unforeseen consequences. Some covenants and by-laws are inserted into housing contracts for particular reasons. There is always the possibility that those covenants could conflict with the new regulations. How will these conflicting aims be managed? Who adjudicates on the impacts on neighbours if the feature that will now be banned had sustainability and affordability merit? This government expects Queensland residents to comply with the rules and regulations that it imposes on them, yet it fails to follow the rules and regulations put in place by local government. Councils across the state are regularly faced with state government housing unit developments and state government buildings that are not built in accordance with council by-laws. That has resulted in suburban overcrowding. Buildings have been constructed too close to neighbouring properties or the street and without adequate car-parking space. Right across the state councils are exasperated by the total contempt that this government is showing for their town plans. Under the council’s laws, a complex in Townsville required 37 car parks. There were 24 apartments constructed on that site when the council said the site was suited for seven apartments. The site had six car-parking bays and the city plan suggested that 37 car-parking bays were needed for a building of that size. The building’s balconies are much smaller than were recommended and it breaches the front setback guideline by 2.4 metres. Of course, yesterday when I raised this issue with the minister she told us all about the pink balconies. The minister claims that it is acceptable to have only six car-parking bays instead of 37 car- parking bays because public housing tenants do not own cars. I dispute that. A car is a necessity, particularly in a regional centre. Such complexes will just create parking problems for everyone in residential areas. So when we look at sustainability and high-density living developments, the government needs to use a little bit of common sense. The inappropriate location of high-density buildings also places community networks and utilities under stress. I applaud the fact that new housing is being built, but I am appalled that the Bligh Labor government has the arrogance to totally ignore council plans. If a council approves a development outside its town plan, there is a very real risk that the government will call it in. In fact, it will do that. Yet the Bligh Labor government is showing total contempt for the same town plans that it enforces. 3382 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009

In Redcliffe a 20-storey building has been approved for 241 affordable accommodation units and 94 dwelling units. It is an expensive site with water views and is located just down the road from a multimillion dollar private housing unit block that has to meet the 12-storey building height limit that was imposed by the Moreton Bay Regional Council. The site for that building is inappropriate. There is no transport and no parking spaces or public space provided. The same thing is occurring in Caboolture. Buildings have been constructed there that have not allowed for public space. People have to hang their washing out on the balconies because that public housing building has not supplied internal clothes- drying facilities. One wonders how this sort of affordable accommodation is going to impact on these towns. It is fine to have affordable accommodation, but not to the extent of building ghettos. The introduction of sections of this legislation to support the implementation of a new part of the Queensland Development Code to improve the current processes for mitigating the impacts of noise in identified transport corridors is to be commended. This code will help development applications that may be impacted by noise from transport corridors. Previously, developments that were being built in areas close to state controlled roads had to lodge a separate approval application to the Department of Transport and Main Roads, which could lead to lengthy delays in the approval process. For these developments to have their applications dealt with in a more streamlined manner will hopefully result in a more consistent approach by the department regarding transport noise. I note that the provisions do not include public transport, ports or airports. I would suggest including these areas in the QDC. Finally, I refer to the changes to the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 to allow dogs and cats under eight weeks old to be microchipped by an authorised implanter who is a veterinary surgeon if the implanter is satisfied that the implantation is of no risk to the animal. More than half the households in this state have either a dog or a cat, or both, but only a third have their pets microchipped. To allow animals to be microchipped at an earlier age may well change those figures and ensure that family pets can be returned to their owners if they should be lost. I commend this bill to the House. Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—LNP) (3.20 pm): I suspect that this bill is one of many of its type that we can expect to see from the Labor government should it last a full term, which seems increasingly unlikely. It is heavily focused on wedge politics as opposed to substantive legislation. I say this after the government massively failed in convincing the federal government and the public that a dam at Traveston Crossing was scientifically valid. That proposition, like the one that we are presently facing, albeit a much less substantial one, was an admixture of issues. This bill mixes some good additions and some absolutely dreadful ones. Obviously we will supporting the amendments that are sensible and opposing those that make no sense at all. I might even go further and suggest that the government wants to be able to subsequently claim that we supported the bill. It had the audacity to link totally different issues under one bill for the express purpose of later claiming that we voted for it. This is why the public holds politicians in contempt and rates them below used car salespeople. Raising the bar towards a greater standard of integrity and a government that can rise above this low base level would be a good start. This bill has two parts that have utterly no relationship to one another. The first part includes changes to the Building Act that reflect the need for regulation and a new mandatory sustainability declaration at point of sale which is not reflective of regulatory need. The second part addresses issues ranging from the Plumbing and Drainage Act to the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act. To deal with the Building Act changes initially, they are dressed up climate change initiatives that the government wants to sell as sustainability initiatives. The initial change is, as all previous speakers and the minister have referred to, the ‘ban the banners’ policy. This policy places severe restrictions on developers and body corporates for housing construction. The minister in his second reading speech spelled out some of the proposed initiatives that do indeed sound reasonable. I, like many in my own electorate, have done exactly what is specified as being ideal. They are very practical measures. The bill allows for the occupation of a dwelling before completion of landscaping, fencing and driveways. The only concern that I have with this approach is that it seems to regard the market with contempt. Developers and builders have to respond to market demands to sell their product. The government continues to engage in either a push or pull model. In this case it appears to be ignoring that the market has moved already. The practical issues are fine. The regulation is a nonsense and it is unnecessary. It is populist rubbish dressed up as addressing a public protection policy. Amidst all this pseudo-intellectual babble is the amazing statement from the minister saying that the policy will help reduce the cost of homes while allowing home owners to choose designs and features that have a small environmental impact as well as a small impact on their pockets. The minister needs to get out of his office and just have a look at what is going on in the real world. Property sizes are shrinking, infrastructure and government charges are rising steeply, housing affordability is decreasing, interest rates are rising, builders’ margins are decreasing, and builders at present are operating on 30 per cent of previous levels. The average Gold Coast home mortgage is $450,000. The suggested changes, once enacted in legislation, will not reduce costs. Merely saying that they will does not mean that it is true. A regulation does not reduce costs by its implementation other than when it reduces charges, removes a tax or embraces more cost-effective mechanisms. This proposal does none of these things. 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3383

The newly proposed mandatory sustainability declaration is a new addition. The minister has stated that the form is simple and that it will help to raise awareness and drive housing markets to reflect the true value of sustainable housing features. This form will become, if it is implemented, the main tool to be used by an astute solicitor to either exit purchasers from contracts or reduce the final sale prices of properties legitimately purchased from vendors. This form, irrespective of the government’s claim that it may be legally enforceable but is being sold as an education document, will add significant cost to the vendor via private sustainability certifiers, recalculated solicitors’ fees and personal angst. This form is unduly complex. It is proscriptive. Its science is very dubious. It is an unwarranted legislative step. It has no justifiable case for action. It does not reduce red tape; it increases it. It requires an expert to complete it to a legal standard. It is effectively a tax that does not deliver an equal benefit for the raising of the tax. It is unsupported by verifiable, road-tested science. It cannot be justified. It weakens and simultaneously complicates the Building Act. I have been intrigued to hear that Labor members believe that it is patronising to say that these forms are difficult to fill out. I personally challenge them to produce a more than 80 per cent successful compliance from 1,000 random constituents. The next most significant part of this bill relates to the issue of the mitigation of noise impacts in identified transport corridors. This affects land along state controlled roads and railway land where it may affect those living nearby. There has been a considerable attempt to define all of the issues that may arise and a definition of how they may be interpreted. This is, of course, one of those really significant issues that can affect residents’ lives, irrespective of whether they have lived in the area, whether they lived there before the road, whether they believed that they were there before it was gazetted, whether they purchased it prior to gazettal, whether they purchased it after gazettal and whether they purchased it after the road was actually constructed. Noise is a health hazard. It can severely disrupt the life of an individual or family. I have raised the issue of severe road noise on the M1 motorway through Gaven due to the lack of open-grade asphalt laid on the concrete motorway. The noise is not uniform. It is different when different types of vehicles travel on the road at different times. This applies to most road noise on most roads. It was equally raised by the member for Waterford in relation to the people who live close to Logan Motorway. As such, the road noise can range from deafening to mildly irritating. The concrete exacerbates the noise, particularly from B-doubles that produce a noise known as trailer slap. The noise can actually reach 120 decibels on average and can be maintained if the trucks run in sequence for up to four hours. It causes pain and it is dangerous. If you are within 100 metres or, in fact, if you are above the barrier and within 200 metres, it can affect your hearing if you sit or stand there for any length of time. Noise travels upwards and outwards. Barriers along the highway generally do not stop it and the noise can be heard up to five kilometres away. As I say, on the Gold Coast it is maximal between 11 pm and 5 am—that is at night through to the early hours of the morning—due to B-doubles transporting large amounts of freight to Brisbane. The average truck weight is 80 tonnes. Local residents are suffering. The new law only assists those from now on. Open-grade asphalt applied will last over the surface and will actually reduce the noise by 40 decibels. The lives of the public will be better. Retrofitting, which was announced as not working, does work. It does have a cost. It costs $20 million per five kilometres to lay and it has an ongoing cost per year. The original contract on the M1 was indeed taken out by the Liberal National Party, but Labor was there at the end and it did not asphalt the surface despite earlier claims that have been made. At the start of the contract it was not intended to asphalt it but at the end of the contract it was. However, it was not asphalted. Irrespective of what has been said in regard to it, that surface should be asphalted. For the majority of the people in the area, their lives would be a lot better if it were. Many thought the problem would just go away. There are some good aspects to the bill, and I have raised them. One of them is in relation to the Plumbing and Drainage Act where the Plumbers and Drainers Board is replaced with a Plumbing Industry Council. I personally thank the minister, the member for Rockhampton, as head of his department. We made representation on this issue and I think the outcome is very good. In relation to building survey technicians, this issue has been dealt with to a large extent. I feel that dumbing down the issue of these areas, particularly when there is seen to be a relative shortage, is certainly not the best way to go. What we will end up with is second-class surveyors. They are often found wanting. They are often placed in very difficult situations. Whilst the natural intention of the bill is to try to make things easier, I think in the long term it will only make things a little harder. I would also like to support the provision relating to the microchipping of dogs and cats. I feel that cats particularly have escaped most of the attention relating to planning and local government issues. For some reason, whilst they have included dogs they have not often included cats. Cats are predatory. They certainly spread significant illnesses. I am deeply concerned about the illnesses that they can convey to pregnant women. They also are a menace to the bird population. I am not anti cat, but they breed up in the wild. I think this is an excellent initiative. 3384 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009

I would like to discuss the Sustainable Planning Act changes that have been suggested. I would like to carry on from those points that were raised by the member for Gympie this morning. In particular, I think that the changes need to be more reflective of what is going on. They need to be appropriate changes. Some of the changes are indeed appropriate. I am trying to understand the issue of class 2 buildings being used as class 3 and the changes that go with that. My understanding is that they are supposed to be owner-occupiers but they are really being used for short-term rentals. Changes have been suggested within the bill that would clarify these issues and then there is the issue of fire. These new changes are to reflect these requirements, particularly for these types of dwellings, but councils appear to be lumbered with trying to implement them, police them and understand them. They really need to be clarified. The new code certainly requires a higher standard, but it looks fairly exhausting to try to work it out. Unfortunately, in relation to this the devil is in the detail. The government needs to be very specific about what it is trying to achieve. Sometimes it is easier to understand these things when we know the problems. Every individual community has its own types of problems. I just wish to highlight two problems which occur on the Gold Coast. One is the issue of suburban housing that is increasingly situated away from the beach. Previously beachfront houses were rented by a variety of people for short-term, long-term and sometimes medium-term periods. Increasingly, as the cost of housing along the beachfront has increased to such a high price, those dwellings are no longer available for even short-term leasing. Those houses in suburban streets have become what are known as party houses. This appears to be getting around a number of the acts. I would have thought this would have been captured under these new changes. These party houses are advertised on the internet. They are domestic dwellings. The neighbours have to put up with this literally every weekend of the year including school and public holidays. People fly in from all around the country and stay in these houses. They party and make terrible noise and literally make people’s lives a misery. This is happening in most suburbs on the Gold Coast literally from Coomera right down to Coolangatta. The bill should try to capture these changes. It relates to the real estate licensing act as well. This issue should have been captured by this bill. I would also like to discuss the issues surrounding some of the houses that are being used for student accommodation. Increasingly, as has been advertised in the press recently, some houses literally have one to two students living in every room of the house. This is happening to such an extent that houses may have 20 students. When councils have gone into some units, for example, they have found 14 students living in a two-bedroom unit. They even live on the verandas. Mr Hinchliffe: And it’s not permitted. Dr DOUGLAS: It is clearly not permitted. We need to be formulating strategies to deal with that. It is certainly a major problem. Mr Hinchliffe: The councils have the power with fire authorities to go in. Dr DOUGLAS: Yes. As we are moving towards the issue of the requirements under the codes, if the government could be clearer about the use of local councils we could then set up a strategy. I think we are all worried about what happened at Childers several years ago. It would be dreadful to think young people who have come from other parts of the world, whose families are honestly thinking they are doing something for their children, may well be caught in a situation where their lives may not be saved if some tragedy befell them. I would like to conclude by saying that I, too, agree that the concept of the bill was a good one, and speaker after speaker has said that. The declaration is inappropriate at this time. I think it is unduly complex. I think it is, indeed, a legal document. It is an expensive and dangerous impost on the public. There has been no warning given to the public and I do not believe it has been road-tested. It appears to be a sell-out to the Greens for little real benefit to anyone. The other issues tacked onto the bill appear to facilitate the bill so that it might be supported by the opposition. I think this is a weak and indecent legislative step. Today of all days with the cancellation of the Traveston Dam, which has led to all sorts of denials from the government about what was really going on, this sleight of hand in trying to muscle through this document in indecent haste really reflects poorly on the government. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (3.34 pm): I wish to speak on the section of the bill dealing with the sustainable declaration process, particularly in light of comments made by the member for Burdekin and others from the opposition today. There seems to be a total misunderstanding of the legislation, the meaning of the legislation and its purpose. I see this as a beneficial item being inserted in the act—beneficial— Mr Messenger: You would, you’re a lawyer. Mr SHINE: Perhaps. I take that interjection. I regard that as being an asset rather than a liability. In relation to understanding contracts and also having some knowledge of conveyancing practice in Queensland, having been involved in conveyancing for the best part of 40 years, perhaps I am unlike the honourable member who just interjected. 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3385

The Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill supports the introduction of an innovative, new, sustainable housing measure that will encourage owners to improve the sustainability of their homes through the disclosure of their homes’ features. The bill proposes that a sustainability declaration be completed by owners when they sell their house, town house or unit from 1 January next year. With growing concerns about the impacts of climate change and the need to improve the performance of our buildings, encouraging more Queenslanders to take notice of sustainable building features is becoming increasingly important. Measures such as the sustainability declaration demonstrate the government’s commitment to tackling climate change through innovative, proactive and long-term strategies that are aimed at protecting the future of our state. Introducing a sustainability declaration will supplement the ClimateSmart 2050 strategy by supplying Queenslanders with the information and the tools they need to reduce their carbon footprint. This is also part of the government’s green vision component of the Toward Q2: Tomorrow’s Queensland policy. In 2008 almost 94,000 homes were sold in Queensland. The compulsory completion of the sustainability declaration when selling a home provides a significant opportunity to promote the value of sustainability and market homes to potential buyers on the basis of having sustainability features installed in a home. It is recognised that homes that have a greater number of sustainability features generally have lower electricity costs and use less water. Sustainable homes will also generate fewer greenhouse gas emissions and will be more comfortable to live in. In addition to these direct benefits to the homeowners, mandating that owners disclose how their home rates in terms of sustainability will help to achieve a number of other sustainability goals. It will increase community awareness of the growing range of sustainable housing features and their value. It will also promote the potential to achieve ongoing financial savings by using specific features. In turn, this will encourage sellers to adopt more sustainable elements in their home to enhance the value of their home and help protect the environment. Using a declaration model will minimise compliance costs for homeowners and ensure the form is simple and easy to complete. There are obligations placed on both private sellers and real estate agents in regard to the sustainability declaration. The declaration needs to be completed by the owner or a delegated person such as a building professional and it must be available for prospective buyers to view at open house inspections. The declaration also needs to be referenced in most advertisements. This will help raise awareness of the declaration and potentially make a home’s sustainability a key marketing tool for agents and homeowners alike. It will be an asset in the selling of a house, not a liability. There are penalties if the homeowner provides false or misleading information on the sustainability declaration. However, a contract will not be able to be terminated on the basis of an incorrect declaration. Over time, it is also anticipated that the declaration will encourage prospective buyers and sellers to place more financial value on sustainable housing features, and I will come back to that point a little later. The proposed form which will make up the declaration will be a simple two-page checklist outlining the property’s environmental and social sustainability features in four key areas: energy, water, access and safety. The energy section of the declaration lists features that can assist in reducing energy consumption in Queensland households. Such features include gas cooking appliances, greenhouse efficient hot-water systems like solar and gas, insulation, outdoor living areas and ceiling fans. These features can significantly reduce electricity usage and reduce the ongoing costs associated with heating and cooling a home. To help to reduce household water consumption in homes, water-saving devices are mandatory in new homes and highly recommended in existing homes. The water section of the declaration lists features that can help decrease household water consumption. Social sustainability features outlined in the access and safety sections of the declaration mean that the property will be suitable for owners during their various life stages. The access section lists features such as grab rails and a level entrance which allows persons of all ages and capabilities, including owners and visitors, to enter, leave and use the facilities of a home with ease. The safety section provides information on several mandatory safety features, such as smoke alarms and electrical safety switches, as well as additional recommended measures to improve safety within a building. The installation of these features is important in the prevention of household incidents that may result in injury. The declaration also outlines the potential electricity and water savings that can be achieved where certain features are installed. For example, savings of up to $546 per year can be achieved if a two-kilowatt solar power system is installed. Savings of up to 36 per cent of household water usage can also be achieved if a rainwater tank is installed. The declaration also allows householders to compare their annual electricity and water usage with average usage in Queensland to further encourage a reduction in electricity and water consumption. In the development of the declaration, a key focus was the broad selection of sustainable housing features that present good value to buyers if they are installed. 3386 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009

In many instances, key sustainability features can be identified via a quick visual inspection. However, some basic tests might need to be done if the answer is not immediately obvious to the person completing the form. A guideline will be developed to help explain how to complete the form where owners may be unsure of technical details or how to identify the features in practice. The sustainability declaration is not intended to be an exhaustive assessment of a home but rather a quick and simple means of conveying some key features to prospective buyers. The disclosure of sustainability features of a home is part of a national agenda to increase the sustainability of existing homes in Australia. Queensland is leading the nation by adopting a similar model before it becomes mandatory nationally in 2011. However, the Queensland sustainability declaration covers four key areas whereas the national model will introduce each area, starting with energy, in a staged approach over several years. The Australian Capital Territory currently requires an energy efficiency rating statement to be included when advertising a property for sale and a copy must be provided to a potential buyer prior to the contract being signed. A report commissioned by the Australian Capital Territory government has shown that this measure has had a positive impact on house values. The report states that a one-star increase in the thermal performance of a home equates to approximately a three per cent increase in its value. It is expected that a similar trend may occur in Queensland as buyers become familiar with the sustainability declaration. A strong foundation of community support is vital for any new government initiative, and the Bligh government places great value on the community’s views. During the exhaustive community consultation on the Improving sustainable housing in Queensland discussion paper, there was overwhelming community support for significant policy changes in our building sector to help address environmental concerns and ensure buildings are designed with our unique climate and changing needs in mind. For example, a mandatory sustainability declaration received 70 per cent support. This bill will deliver what the community has so strongly supported. The sustainability declaration is a cost-effective, innovative new measure which will support and encourage the use of sustainable housing features and increase community awareness of the social and environmental value associated with such features. I strongly commend the bill to the House. Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (3.45 pm): I rise to support the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. In doing so, I commend the minister for delivering a series of firsts in Australia in leadership and sustainability. The bill places Queensland as a national leader in what are groundbreaking policies relating to sustainable buildings, koala habitat preservation and transport noise. We have a rapidly growing state, and the government is putting long-term, sensible strategies in place to preserve our quality of life. The bill supports the introduction of two innovative new sustainability measures: firstly, the mandatory sustainability declaration at the point of sale for houses, town houses and units; and, secondly, the ‘ban the banners’ policy that stops bodies corporate and developers from restricting and banning the use of sustainable and affordable design features such as light coloured roofs, smaller houses and solar hot-water systems. These measures will contribute very strongly to the Bligh government’s Toward Q2: Tomorrow’s Queensland green ambitions. With growing concerns about the potential impacts of climate change and the need to improve the sustainability performance of our buildings, encouraging more Queenslanders to take notice of sustainable building features is becoming more important. Pioneering long-term strategies, such as the sustainability declaration, explicitly demonstrate the Bligh government’s commitment to tackling the climate change challenge and protecting our future. The disclosure of sustainability features of a home is on a national agenda in an effort to boost the performance of existing homes. However, Queensland is leading the nation by adopting a disclosure model before it becomes mandatory nationally in 2011. The introduction of the three areas in the national model—that is, energy, water and greenhouse gas emissions—is being staged over several years, with new areas being introduced over time in steps starting with energy. Queensland, I am very proud to say, is at the forefront of the nation by taking a broad view of sustainability and requiring disclosure in four key areas—energy, water, access and security—at once, with a simple method of ascertaining the home’s greenhouse gas emissions as well. Queensland will also be the very first state in Australia to implement a ‘ban the banners’ policy that prevents bodies corporate and developers from banning sustainable and affordable design options. This has significant benefits for homeowners state-wide but particularly for my electorate, which is one of the fastest growing areas in all of Australia. It includes providing potential purchasers with greater choice of features and design options that are much more sustainable. There is also a very positive impact on housing affordability. The ‘ban the banners’ initiative aligns with the government’s Queensland Housing Affordability Strategy, which aims to help boost housing affordability in our state. 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3387

With the busy M1 being the eastern border of my electorate in Albert, I am very pleased that the bill is addressing the impacts of transport noise in the state. The bill supports the introduction of a proposed mandatory code for residential buildings located along major transport corridors. This code aims to streamline current processes that address transport noise and provide a consistent state-wide approach. Currently, the state government places covenants on noise affected residential properties near key transport routes and establishes whether there should be any extra building requirements. This is currently determined on a case-by-case basis. Where a building application is made for a property that is the subject of such a covenant, the applicant must have an acoustic report prepared. The government then assesses each individual application and associated conditions. As you would expect, this process increases the costs involved and the time taken for final building approvals. The problem is that it provides little up-front or consistent design directions for developers, and it is something which developers in the electorate of Albert have spoken to me about. The bill also supports a nation-leading strategy to save koalas in South-East Queensland. An amendment to the Acquisition of Land Act will give new powers to the state that will enable conservation of critical koala habitats through compulsory acquisition of land, something that I strongly support. This power is applicable to land that is not currently occupied and outside the urban footprint. It is also only specific to local government areas in South-East Queensland—that is, Logan, the Sunshine Coast, Brisbane, Moreton Bay, Ipswich, the Gold Coast and the Redlands. This amendment supports the government’s Koala Response Strategy, which has been in place since December 2008. This strategy aims to protect our unique koalas and increase the expanse of their habitats in the south-east corner of our state by 2020. I congratulate Minister Hinchliffe on leading Queensland in building sustainability, and I strongly commend the bill to the House. Mr POWELL (Glass House—LNP) (3.51 pm): I rise to address the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. Like others, I note that a lot of the amendments in this bill are to do with the Building Act 1975 and, to a lesser extent, the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997. I understand they are to ensure that conditions that are placed on new developments will not lock in bad practices. I commend this move. I think it is a very smart move. We on this side of the House support the freedom of an individual to choose, so these amendments will allow homeowners to consider affordability and sustainability options when they design and build their houses. I have recently met with a group of environmentally minded individuals in my electorate including Jenny Fitzgibbon, who, aside from being the Greens candidate for Glass House at the last election, is by profession an industrial designer. Jenny is passionate about affordable sustainable housing, particularly through housing design. I share her passion. Like many in South-East Queensland, I am always looking at ways in which I can reduce my need for water and electricity in my own residence. Amendments like these that allow greater freedom in these areas are commendable. I would like to address some of those areas because I think they are very commendable areas, such as minimum floor space; number of garages, bedrooms and bathrooms; minimum roof pitch; the orientation of the building—very smart in a state such as Queensland—allowing occupation of a dwelling before completion of landscaping, fencing, driveways and the like; insulation of solar hot-water systems or photovoltaic cells—as I keep saying, why our state is not driving solar technology in this world, I do not know—roof colour; window treatment; and specific material or finishes to external walls and roofs. I think all of these will go a long way to achieving Jenny’s goal of real options for affordable and sustainable housing development. I note that chapter 8B of this legislation will also amend the Building Act 1975 to improve the current processes for mitigating the impacts of noise on identified transport corridors. The move to streamline the approach is also commendable and supported by the LNP. While there are many other amendments, I would like to touch on just two more. Firstly, part 12 amends the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 to allow compulsory acquisition powers for koala habitat outside the urban footprint and South- East Queensland. It will allow for acquisition of uninhabited land designated as rural living or regional landscape and rural production areas under the SEQ Regional Plan in council areas such as Moreton Bay and Sunshine Coast, both of which are in my electorate. I am a strong believer, because of what we know about koalas and their preferred habitat, that we should be looking to preserve corridors, particularly corridors rather than parcels of land. I would like to refer to some notes taken from the Australian Koala Foundation’s website. Koalas live in societies just like humans, so they need to be able to come into contact with other koalas. It is because of this that they need to have areas of suitable eucalypt forest which are large enough to support a healthy koala population and to allow for expansion by maturing young koalas. Koalas are highly territorial, and in stable breeding groups individual members of koala society maintain their own home range areas. A home range consists of a number of home range trees and food trees which comprise the long-term territory of the individual koala. A home range varies in size depending on the habitat—the quality of the bushland. Within a socially stable group, the home ranges of individual koalas overlap with those of their neighbours. It is in the shared overlapping trees that the majority of social interaction takes place. These are very important trees. 3388 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009

Koala populations only occur if suitable habitat is available. Because koalas are very fussy eaters—unlike me, I might add—and have strong preferences for different types of gum leaves, the most important factor which makes habitats suitable are the presence of tree species preferred by koalas, usually eucalypts but also some noneucalypts, growing in particular associations on suitable soils without a good rainfall. Research has shown, however, that socially stable koala populations occur only when there are favourite tree species present. Even if a selection of tree species known to be used by koalas occurs within an area, the koala population will not use it unless one or two favourite species are available. In Australia there are over 600 types of eucalypts, but koalas will eat only 40 to 50 varieties, with only about 10 being preferred. Within a particular area as few as one and generally no more than two or three species of eucalypt will be regularly browsed, while a variety of other species including some noneucalypts appear to be browsed occasionally or used for just sitting or sleeping in. This amendment will allow such corridors to hopefully be acquired. It will have flow-on benefits to broader biodiversity conservation and greater clarity around responsible development. I think this amendment has real application in my electorate of Glass House. As my neighbour the member for Morayfield also noted, the area to the west of Caboolture is a future investigation area under the SEQ Regional Plan and it is also prime koala habitat. This amendment means the government should either now, or as part of the investigation area’s potential future master planning, begin working with landowners and developers to protect within this growth area a significant and scientifically supported koala corridor. Locking up small parcels of land such as the recent farce and fiasco in the Redlands is not the way to go. As I said, koalas are sociable and they are fussy eaters. They need larger connected tracts, and it is my hope that the government will use this amendment wisely to balance growth and koala habitat to the west of Caboolture. The final amendment I would like to touch on is that which inserts a new mandatory sustainable declaration. I know what the government is trying to do, but its propensity for bureaucratic red tape is shining through once more. This is not, as the member for Toowoomba North said, innovative or proactive; it is bureaucratic. Other members of the LNP, particularly those with legal backgrounds, will address the potential legal nightmare this signed declaration will lead to, but let me pick up on a couple of issues. The member for Waterford said that a real estate agent could do it. I am sure they could, but are the members of the real estate fraternity ready for the litigation costs they may be slugged with if they do not fill it in correctly, or if it is questioned later through the court system? I doubt it. Will they do it for free? I sincerely doubt that as well. It will become another fee factored into their agent’s costs. So, if not the real estate agent then who? It has the potential for a whole new spin-off inspector industry, which will only bring a whole new range of fair trading issues, as the member for Mermaid Beach earlier identified. As such, this is yet another piece of red tape that will negatively impact on housing affordability. It has the real potential to completely undo all of those positive aspects of this bill, such as the removal of sustainable and affordable design restrictions. As a minimum, as the member for Mermaid Beach suggested, why can it not become an option for the buyer rather than the seller in the same way that we get pest or building reports? Another concern is the penalties for not complying with this amendment. Let me mention just some of them— failure to have the sustainability declaration, 20 penalty units or $2,000; failure to amend or replace a sustainability declaration, another $2,000; advertising for the sale of a building without including required information, $2,000 and so on. Getting caught doing more than 30 kilometres an hour over the speed limit only slugs someone $466. What is this government’s priority—is it red tape or is it the road toll? This sustainable declaration is simply dangerous. The intent of this amendment might be to improve the sustainability of Queensland housing, but, unfortunately, unlike the other amendments in the bill, I fear the outcome of this will fall disastrously short of that. Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—LNP) (3.59 pm): I rise to speak in the debate on the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, brought into the House by the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, the honourable member for Stafford, on Thursday, 29 October this year, a mere two weeks ago. Yet again we have another example of a bill being rushed through this House and debated soon after it was introduced at the expense of other worthwhile bills which languish on the Notice Paper. Does the government not regard legislation that toughens laws for dangerous sexual offenders or that regulates prostitution as important? Whatever happened to the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill? More likely, this is yet another promise made in order to woo the green vote at the state election, as it is articulated by the minister that this legislation will fulfil an election promise. If only this Labor government would place the same degree of importance on other election promises such as the one made by the then minister for mines and energy to underground powerlines through Palm Beach and Currumbin. The silence is deafening from the government and the member for Burleigh, who refused to fight for her constituents. 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3389

The Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 states as its policy objective ‘to make amendments to a number of acts relevant to sustainable building practices and other building and plumbing matters’. Acts that will be amended include the Building Act 1975, the Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002, the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, the Sustainability Planning Act 2009 and others. I will direct my comments today to amendments to the Building Act, the Body Corporate and Community Management Act and the Sustainable Planning Act. I find it astounding that already the government is having to amend the Sustainable Planning Act, which was only brought in earlier this year. This is further proof that Labor is making flawed legislation on the run. This bill contains some amendments that are going to impact heavily on consumers in the name of sustainability. It is commendable, or more accurately responsible, for each of us to be environmentally conscientious and do what we can to make our houses and surrounds more compatible with the environment. But to impose laws that may have negative impacts upon countless innocent people is both incompetent and negligent. This government has built a desalination plant at Tugun that will chug through enormous amounts of electricity and produce an unholy amount of emissions, yet it has the audacity to force very detailed sustainability certificates onto the good people of Queensland. I am fortunate indeed to live in the exquisitely beautiful electorate of Currumbin. I am well aware of the importance of living green and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Currumbin Valley is home to Queensland’s finest example of sustainable urban development with its inspirational ecovillage—a state, Australian and international award winner. I encourage all members of this House to take a trip up to the Currumbin Valley and visit this amazing development. This unique, six-star rated envirodevelopment accredited project consists of 144 lots located on a 110-hectare site. Currumbin’s ecovillage is an excellent example of how to live in a highly sustainable, comfortable and environmentally friendly manner. Strict covenants call for building materials to be renewable, slab-on-ground building is prohibited, no bricks or tiles are allowed inside or out, mandatory thermal mass components are installed in every home, there is correct solar orientation of the building, and there is solar hot water with gas backup and energy efficient fittings, to name just a few. As honourable members can well imagine, this absolute dedication to this degree of sustainability does come at a price. It is a price that not every citizen can afford or wishes to make as their lifestyle choice. Choice is the operative word here and this bill erodes it. People who do not satisfactorily fill in forms will almost certainly be disadvantaged compared to those who do. Then there are the legal ramifications, which I understand have caused the government to rush through some amendments to this legislation. Where are the mandatory building inspections for balconies and other renovations that are so needed in this state? This bill has aspects which are offensive and unacceptable to the LNP which is why we will be opposing the sustainability declaration as it stands. Without doubt, the intent of this bill points in the right direction, but the provisions within it are poorly thought through and may well go the way of the Sustainable Planning Act and need revision within months or minutes, as we have witnessed already. I also note comments in the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s Legislation Alert of 10 November, issue No. 11 of 2009. It has a number of issues in relation to fundamental legislative principles and whether there is sufficient regard to the rights and liberties of individuals in this bill. Correspondence has been sent to the minister asking him to provide information on whether certain clauses do have sufficient regard to the rights and liberties of individuals. Unfortunately—or rather, I should say, insultingly—this report will not get back to the parliamentary committee before the bill is debated. So this committee’s powers are to some degree being mocked by the government by bringing this bill forward before the committee has received a reply from the minister. The amendment to ‘ban the banners’ by stopping bodies corporate and developers from restricting the use of sustainable and affordable design features such as light coloured roofs, single garages, smaller homes and solar hot-water systems presents a number of issues. It would appear that in the haste to draft this legislation, which I might add seems to be becoming fairly standard behaviour from this Labor government, it may have unintentional consequences such as dispute resolution. Under this amendment, bodies corporate will not be able to impose restrictions of colour, size and shape in areas or projects that are being built in the future. I have seen firsthand the grief caused to neighbours when one decides to put a white reflective roof on a neighbouring property and it causes the other neighbour to literally not be able to look out the window on a sunny day because of the glare that bounces off the roof. The same could be said for tinted windows as well. Whilst they might be a sustainable initiative, it may have a negative impact and create a degree of friction in our suburbs if not carefully managed. It is the introduction of mandatory completion of a sustainability declaration at the point of sale for houses, town houses and units which is a cause for grave concern. What started out as optional has now been made mandatory from 1 January 2010, which really does not give much time at all. I ask the minister if he would inform the House in his summing-up whether it only applies to new houses or units or to all houses and units. I do believe the government’s amendment deals with exempting auctions but that still leaves a lot of ordinary sales. 3390 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009

There is an act in the ACT that is similar. This legislation is fraught with issues as to the implementation of this sustainability declaration. We have heard government members downplay the detail required to fill in these forms. It will only be a matter of time before these forms cause disputes and unhealthy comparative practices. I really do hope that we will not be in the position to continually have to say to government members, ‘We told you so.’ Bringing in legislation rapidly like this will be the trigger for a flurry of new businesses to open up and leave the consumer vulnerable to fraudulent operators. I would hope that the minister has thought through the implementation of this in detail to avoid consumers being ripped off and certainly being misled. Perhaps the minister would reassure us of this point in his summing-up. Altering properties to make them more appealing in a sustainable way in this short space of time will no doubt add some hefty costs that will have to be borne by either the new purchaser or someone, if not the owner. Having solar heating in my own home for over 20 years, compost bins and rainwater tanks on my acreage property, I know that it costs a significant amount of money to install these things. Whilst the benefits, especially to our environment are there, they are not things that everybody can dip into their pockets and buy. When my family and I moved to the Gold Coast from Adelaide in 1987, we were shocked to learn that rainwater tanks were banned as we could not survive without them back there. My, how times have changed! Solar panels are a major investment for anyone to be considering, and the federal Labor government’s flipping and flopping with rebates not only is irresponsible but also has cost jobs and incomes. The bill, importantly, addresses mitigation of the impacts of noise in identified transport corridors, and this issue is of sizeable consequence in Currumbin where we waited some 20 years for the Tugun bypass to be built. The M1, which as anyone who commutes to Brisbane along it can attest, has become very heavily utilised and often slows to a crawl. Residential suburbs adorn it on either side. My office regularly receives constituents with sound complaints—and I might say there is the occasional sound complaint in here, too—many of whom request noise monitoring. I note this legislation will enforce mitigation in areas that are about to be developed, so the developer will need to consider this noise attenuation prior to building. However, it is just as much an issue for people who are living in an existing area who have a state road through it. Only last week I was presented with a report titled the Tugun bypass year 1 post construction road traffic noise measurements relating to an area from Stewart Road in Tugun to the New South Wales border. This document contains some very interesting information for people, and I want to share some of it with the House. I also want to place on record my thanks to Main Roads representatives who took the time to visit me and explain this document. This particular study was carried out for sound to be within limits until the year 2017. Road traffic noise levels were measured over a 12-month period and carried out at locations that were identified as sensitive and were exposed to road traffic noise impact in that manner. It is of particular interest when reading this report to learn exactly what are acceptable levels of noise and just how people’s hearing reacts to different sounds. Each of us has varying hearing aptitude ranging from highly sensitive to any noise to acutely deaf. Traffic noise complaints are common, as many honourable members would indisputably verify. However, an acceptable level for noise through this area was determined and was considered to be somewhere between 50 and 60 decibels. This sound pressure level is deemed to be similar to the noise you would expect in a department store or a general office and is evaluated as moderate to quiet. I imagine that this level of noise would be somewhere within the levels contained in the amendments of this bill. However, when we move up to 70 or 80 decibels, that is rated as an imitation of noise heard on the kerbside of a busy street or loud radio or television noise. This goes into a bracket that is subjectively evaluated as loud and would therefore be considered unacceptable and would not pass a feasibility study for residents who live in the vicinity of these roads. I share this with the House because I think it is important to know just exactly what levels are considered acceptable in our communities today. In order to attenuate a lot of this noise, road traffic noise barriers and in-house noise attenuation treatments were provided when the traffic noise was measured and was going to exceed the criteria in the year 2017. Noise modelling of this kind is undertaken before the opening of a new road already or the upgrade of a project and is again continued 10 years later. I am told that the method used by independent consultants is very complex and incorporates topography, traffic volumes, traffic speed, traffic type, building locations, noise barrier locations and road surface type. Also included is a predictive percentage of heavy vehicle use. Noise levels are measured over two 24-hour periods and the modelling is undertaken between 6 am and midnight. A lot of complaints are received about truck noise, and we have heard speakers refer to that in this House today, from both the Gold Coast Highway and, to a lesser degree, along the Tugun bypass and many of us have seen signs that say ‘Urban area—please reduce noise’ where we are hoping that 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3391 trucks will consider sleeping neighbourhoods. We have a new residential development underway along the bypass, and this legislation would ensure that developers made noise mitigation adjustments necessary for residents to live comfortably. Another amendment in this bill is expanding the role of building surveying technicians, or BSTs, supposedly to improve the career paths in the building sector but primarily to address the shortage of building certifiers. Opposition has been voiced by the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors as it does not believe that BSTs have sufficient skills to work in private certification without supervision. It would appear that this expansion of roles of people or watering down of qualifications is happening right across the departments within this Labor government in an attempt to fill shortfalls, many of its own making. Acquisition of land to protect koala habitat is a positive step, and I commend the government on this amendment. I am a very strong advocate of the Currumbin Wildlife Sanctuary and its new hospital, which since opening only a few months ago has seen a massive increase not only in injured wildlife but in injured koalas. As I have said, I live in the Currumbin Valley and I have seen development encroach on our koala habitat and the number of koalas that used to scamper across my backyard has diminished greatly. In closing, we on this side of the House do recognise the importance of creating sustainable communities. However, legislation must be fair and balanced and not overly regulate people’s lives or penalise them heavily financially. Mr McLINDON (Beaudesert—LNP) (4.15 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. As the former chair of the Environment and Sustainability Committee of the Logan City Council—the third largest council before the forced amalgamations—I was very proud to oversee some great initiatives in the name of sustainability for the council, including the installation of solar power for the Logan Entertainment Centre. That was good to see and I want to put a good word in for the Logan City Council for its efforts to ensure that a lot of these innovative ideas are brought to the table. It is also important to realise that the sustainability declaration form in this legislation is mentioned as an educational tool, but I would beg to differ. It is very concerning to see such a declaration. Initially I was excited and said, ‘It’s great. This is actually informing me of what you could save and what you could possibly change.’ Initially I thought it was great and informative, and I am assuming that the information is correct because it was probably whipped up fairly quickly. It has come at a very good time obviously now that the Traveston Dam has been announced as a no-go and a flop, and of course the government probably knew that from the outset. What is extremely concerning is that on the other side of the declaration form the seller actually has to make sure that it is signed by the landowner. What is of concern is this: is it or is it not legally binding? If it is not, why would the landowner need to sign it? If it is, then we are going to open up a whole can of worms on every transaction that is made from hereon in in Queensland. If this sustainability declaration was supposed to educate people in the way that we have seen the government spend $1.9 million educating people on the assets giveaway—I did not see a signature at the bottom of that, but who knows with this government; that may be in the mail shortly to make sure that we have all complied—who in fact will have the onus placed on them if the information is incorrect? Is it going to be the person who filled it out? Let me give the House an example. If a grandmother wants her son to fill out the form because she is not quite sure and he is in a hurry and fills it out but he has done it on her behalf and she has signed it, is that legally binding and what is going to happen if the information is incorrect? Is grandmother in trouble? Is the son in trouble? Where does it stop? I heard some suggestions from members of the government that the property agent could fill it out. If they are going to fill it out, naturally they would have a disclaimer on it because otherwise they would then be legally liable. This is the most ludicrous form that I have ever seen that a Queenslander has to fill out. It is completely inconsistent and does not make sense. I could assure the House that not one member of the 89 members in this House, if they had seven days to fill this form out, would get it correct. Yet this is what the government is imposing. After 70,000 pages of regulation, we have added another page to a state that is stifling—a state, mind you, where this government has overseen a halving in the koala population in South-East Queensland, yet it has the audacity to turn around and put the microscope on the landowner to fill out a form that no-one in this parliament would ever have the capacity to be able to fill out truthfully and honestly given its content. With regard to insulation material in the ceiling, what does the government expect people to do? Are they going to start chopping walls down? This is just ridiculous! Then there is the letterbox number. I am not sure how ensuring that the house number is clearly visible from the street has anything to do with sustainability. I understand that there is a safety aspect to that. In fact, the Neighbourhood Watch groups in the Logan City Council area came to me asking for funding to pay for metallic paint and stencils to ensure that property numbers were visible from the gutter. 3392 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009

Of course, Neighbourhood Watch did not get any help from the state government, even though it is a state body. I cannot believe that here we see the government putting the onus back on the homeowner. I tried to get ratepayers’ money to get projects like this up and running because the state government, as usual, did not fill the hole. The government makes the councils and the consumers of Queensland try to fulfil the policy that it brings in and then it wipes its hands of it. We have seen the education campaign that was conducted by the Water Commission. Billions of dollars was saved. At least we got a four-minute shower timer. It only worked for a week, but at least we got something. But here, homeowners get nothing. The government slaps on more regulation. I do not understand, when every single member in this House will not able to fill out this declaration, why it is required. We have seen the government destroy Queensland completely. As we speak, there will be bulldozers going through core koala habitat. That is the nature of this government. Yet we see here watermelon policy: it is a shade of green on the outside but most of it is red tape on the inside. Once again we see watermelon policy introduced by this government to create a diversion, to send out a message that it has some sort of green credentials, or it is in the pursuit of them at least when, in reality, this policy is going to add red tape and it is going to block the court system. Housing contracts will fall through left, right and centre. We are going to have to revisit this legislation. The writing is on the wall. It does not make sense. Why does the government not see that? It has done it in an ad hoc manner. The bill was uploaded on to the web at the last minute. The government has assumed it will be fine. Why does the government not put the same information in people’s letterboxes? Why does it not blow another $1.9 million on putting leaflets in people’s letterboxes and drop the signature part? That will be so much more effective than adding this piece of paper that will potentially see housing contracts end up in the court system. To me it is extremely black and white. I am sure the average Joe would see that this amendment is just going to, once again, add to the regulations in this state. I urge the government to eat a bit of humble pie, realise that it has rushed the legislation and realise that it is trying to get its green credentials up when it is watermelon policy. We see that it is going to stifle the housing market. We know that. Member after member has said that. Some of the crazy arguments that we have heard from government members really highlight to me the fact that they do not understand the bill. An opposition member interjected. Mr McLINDON: Especially the minister. So I urge government members to reconsider the bill. If they want to blow $1.9 million promoting what they do not stand for, that is fine. Go for it. But do not put the onus on every landholder. It will create a bottleneck in the court system. It is inconsistent. I would assume that not one of the 89 members in this House would be able to fill out this form. With this sort of stuff in this bill, when it comes to the consideration in detail stage I am sure our good shadow minister will certainly highlight the need and the importance to take this provision out of the bill. I have every confidence that the shadow minister will certainly highlight that issue. Who knows? The government may yet submit. Overall, I give the bill about 2½ out of 10. Mr ELMES (Noosa—LNP) (4.22 pm): I rise to speak to the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009, which will come into play on 1 January next year. Can I say to the House that I am absolutely delighted to be taking part in a debate that was headed by our shadow minister, who has not been able to wipe the grin off his face today. I doubt whether he will be able to do that for some months to come and he deserves— Mr Watt: A very smart man. Mr ELMES: A very smart man and so are the people of the Mary Valley. This bill that we are debating today in the House has many and varied features. Its provisions range from microchipping dogs and cats at eight weeks of age to providing noise barriers to protect property owners from highway noise and a lot more. As the shadow minister has said, the LNP will support this bill, but I will come later to the area of conflict that we have with the government in terms of one particular section. From my point of view this bill is important as my shadow portfolio covers climate change and sustainability. So much of this bill contains provisions that come within my area of responsibility. One of the issues that is of most interest to me relates to the steps that have been taken by the government to preserve koala habitat. It is worrying that all the science tells us that there will be no koalas left on the Koala Coast by 2010, which is about six weeks away. As events continue to unfold, I hope that we will not go down the track of looking at koala habitat that is owned by individuals and compulsorily bringing that land back under state control so that those people are not able to do anything with their land. We have to be able to provide those landholders with incentives to keep the native forest and to keep a viable koala population in the Koala Coast area and elsewhere in South-East Queensland. Another area of interest to me is the section in the bill that is defined in the explanatory notes as ‘ban the banners’. That section contains many very good ideas, including provisions relating to minimum floor areas; the number of garages, bedrooms and bathrooms; the minimum roof pitch; the orientation of 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3393 the building; allowing completion of a dwelling before landscaping, fencing and driveways are completed; allowing occupation of a dwelling before completion; the installation of solar hot-water systems or photovoltaic cells; roof colour—which is a very important one that I will come to a little bit later—window treatment and specific material for finishes to external walls and roofs. My family built the home that we live in at the moment 12 or 13 years ago. It is in an estate in Noosaville, which is the centre of the universe. The area in which we built had a lot of very strict covenants on what we could do and how things could be built, including the design of the home— whether it was federation, or Mediterranean, or whatever. In many cases, particularly in new estates, large homes have been built on smaller blocks of land. The lack of eaves down one side of the house enables a bigger house footprint to be built on the land. Of course, there is also the colour of the roof. I went through the building process and when it was all over I looked at my very dark red roof and thought what a wonderful colour that was. I hasten to say that that was 12 or 13 years ago. One has to learn from the mistakes that have been made. These changes, which give a lot more independence to people who are building and developing their own homes, are very welcome. As a responsible homeowner—and this was done over a period of time and I did not realise it at the time that I was reducing my carbon footprint—I installed things like whirlybirds in the roof and insulation in the roof. I tinted windows and installed ceiling fans. I also took part in the ClimateSmart program. I have said many times before that the ClimateSmart program that this government runs is a first-class program. I have some difficulties with the administration of it, but certainly the intent of it and the professionalism of the people who take part in it and do the installation is first class. Things like the installation of gas stoves and the allocation of extra breezeways—that sort of thing—are very important and they are things that I and my family have done over a period. We have a plan to roll out more of those things. But my family is in a position to be able to afford that rollout. Everyone who sits in this House is in a position to be able to afford those sorts of rollouts to repair or minimise design faults that either they had intentionally built into their home or happened by accident. I am concerned that tens of thousands of homeowners in Queensland will try to do whatever they can do, because they can see the faults the same as we can, but they are limited by the available funds to be able to go out and achieve those aims. I am concerned that, through this process, they are going to be disadvantaged. In particular I welcome section 246O of the legislation which invalidates a prohibition on the selection of light roof colours—although I would not like to see us revert to galvanised roofs in our part of the world, because the shine and glare that comes off them is something that neighbours would not appreciate; energy efficient windows; the treatment of a window for energy efficiency; a person from occupying a class 1a building before landscaping, fencing and driveways are completed; the use of a specific material or type of surface finish for the roof or external walls of a class 1a building or an enclosed class 10a building attached to a class 1a building—we go back, then, into the covenants that I was talking about before, and the example given in the explanatory notes is that a building covenant cannot prohibit buildings in a new residential estate from having face brick walls or metal roofs, Colorbond roofs and those sorts of things; or the installation of solar hot-water systems or photovoltaic cells on the roof of a building to the extent that the prohibition applies merely for the purpose of preserving external appearance of the building. We must do everything we can to encourage people to place solar panels on their roofs and to use solar hot-water systems to cut down on energy usage. This section also includes provisions relating to minimum floor areas, a minimum number of bedrooms and bathrooms, the construction of a class 1a building or any landscaping, driveways or similar work to be completed within a stated period, more than one garage and, as I mentioned earlier, minimum roof pitches and other things. I make it clear that, regardless of one’s political persuasion in this House, everyone here, including those of us on our side of the parliament, all support sustainability. I certainly support sustainability. But we should go down the incentive track where it is humanly possible rather than go down the regulation track. In the last couple of fairly major speeches that I have made in this parliament—one in the debate on the Great Barrier Reef Protection Bill and one in the debate on the Vegetation Management Bill—I have spoken of the need for incentives rather than overbearing regulation. One can imagine my surprise when, as part of all of the bits and pieces we received with regard to the legislation we are debating today, I received this sustainability declaration. It contains 56 points—56 questions, if you like—that highlight what one needs to put down prior to being able to sell one’s home. I note that in his speech the member for Toowoomba North said that they were quick and easy. I may have to come and see the member for Toowoomba North if I ever try to sell my house and get his legal help to work my way through this declaration. I am very pleased that the member for Morayfield has come back into the House. You will see, if you are able to read the Queen’s English, that the word ‘Noosa’ is on there so I am actually making a contribution to this debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! Member for Noosa, that is not directing your comments through the chair. 3394 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009

Mr ELMES: I am sorry. I just wanted to correct one of our younger apprentices. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do so through the chair. Mr ELMES: As I said, imagine my surprise when I came across the mandatory sustainability declaration. It seems to me that someone has left the door to the asylum open, all the inmates have got out and the minister has employed them. What they have been able to come up with is this document here. From the point of view of making something easy for people to understand and easy to work through, this is a nonsense. As the minister knows, I know his electorate of Stafford very well. Many members of my family have lived in his electorate. Unfortunately, a few of them voted for him. That is my heritage. If I were to say to some of my pretty old aunts and uncles that before they sell their home they need to fill in one of these, we would have a problem. They have to go through 56 questions. A new industry has sprung up and it has been developed by the Labor Party today. Many people will work in it as time goes on. The member for Moggill, whose attributes I certainly set far greater store in when it comes to matters to do with Treasury and figures and so forth, estimated that there would be a 225 per cent saving on electricity and a 150 per cent saving on water. So we should all leave here today and open up new bank accounts so that that money can keep flooding in. Whether one likes it or not, this is a legal document—whether it is signed or not. It is a document that people who are going to sell their home will fill in to the best of their ability. I have no doubt they will. There is a whole class of lawyers, and I am being particularly careful— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Noosa, I have been sitting here for approximately four minutes and you have tediously referred to that document three times. Please get on with your argument. Mr ELMES: With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please get on with your argument. You are aware of standing orders in relation to tedious repetition? Thank you. Mr ELMES: I will endeavour to go slightly quicker. There would appear to me to be a great many lawyers and people who practise in that field who will make an awful lot of money out of this. I feel very sorry for the people who work through this declaration to the best of their ability and because they have made a mistake have the contract on their house voided or have a solicitor ring them and suggest that in order to see the sale go through they should perhaps drop the price of the home. I suggest to the members opposite that on Friday, when they go back to their electorates, they pick the first 10 people they find and ask them about this, see what they say and then start to apply some pressure to the minister—he does try to do the right thing—to turn this part of this legislation into something based on incentive rather than something based on regulation. The LNP supports this bill, but we certainly will not be supporting the mandatory sustainability declaration. Debate, on motion of Mr Elmes, adjourned.

ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (4.38 pm): I advise honourable members that the House can continue past 6.30 pm this day. The House can break for dinner at 6.30 pm and resume its sitting at 7.30 pm. The order of business shall then be government business followed by a 30-minute adjournment debate.

BUILDING AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Declared Urgent; Allocation of Time Limit Order Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (4.39 pm), by leave, without notice: I move— That under the provisions of standing order 159 the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill be declared an urgent bill and the following time limits apply to enable the bill to be passed through its remaining stages at this day’s sitting: (a) second reading by 8.30 pm; (b) consideration in detail by 8.55 pm; (c) third reading by 8.58 pm; and (d) long title agreed to by 9.00 pm. If the stage has not been completed by the time specified, Mr Speaker shall put all remaining questions necessary to pass the bill, including clauses and schedules, en bloc along with any amendments to be moved by the minister in charge of the bill without further amendment or debate. 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3395

Mr GIBSON (Gympie—LNP) (4.39 pm): This bill was only introduced into the House 14 days ago. This is the first opportunity to debate it. We note the government’s urgency in wanting to bring forward the bill, and that is understood and accepted. However, this is the first opportunity we have had to do that. In bringing on an urgency motion in relation to this bill the government is again ensuring that the content of this bill—the amendments that need to be passed, the debate that needs to occur on the clauses—is going to be limited. We have seen this time and time again. We saw a similar situation with the Sustainable Planning Bill; it was critical to debate the clauses, seek clarification and move amendments. Since the election, this government has developed an addiction to bringing urgency motions into the House. If it was so important for this bill to be debated and moved this week, the government could have asked for standing orders to be suspended earlier in the week rather than waiting til the 14 days had passed. We could have debated it earlier in the week and we could have then moved on. I find the inability of this government to properly manage the bills as presented before this House a disgrace. We on this side of the House believe that the people of Queensland who elect us to this parliament place with us a responsibility to properly debate legislation before it is passed. I cannot believe that it is happening again on an important piece of legislation—and it almost seems that this minister has been targeted with regard to some of the important bills that attract this motion. What we see here is unacceptable. We will not be supporting the urgency motion on this. There is a need for this bill to be properly debated. There is a need to do that in the clauses. This government seems to have the view that we can speak on the second reading and once we have done that there is no other requirement; there is no need to go into the clauses. That is not acceptable and we will not be supporting this motion. Mr DICKSON (Buderim—LNP) (4.42 pm): I think we need to talk about this. This is happening regularly. The people of Queensland deserve better. The government is looking to guillotine another bill in Queensland. When is this going to stop? When is this government going to be open and accountable to the people of Queensland? Every member of this House deserves to have their say. This government continues to go down a path of deceit. It continues to go down a path of draconianism. It wants to not let the people of Queensland know what is happening. We need to be open; we need to be accountable. This is just another great example of Labor. I thought it would have learnt from the Traveston Dam experience. It got it wrong. Every time it guillotines these bills the people of Queensland miss out on having their say by way of their parliamentary representative. I can feel a division coming on very quickly. The government is wasting time when we could have been debating this bill. The people who are elected to this Assembly have a right to speak, and what is happening here today is taking away that right. This is not China; this is Australia. It is a democratic country. We have a right to have our say. This Labor government is taking away that right that the public gave us. It has worked very well for over 100 years. It is about time the Labor Party started to realise that it is doing over every single Queenslander every time it drops the guillotine. That is all I have to say on the matter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! Before calling the member for Burnett, I would acknowledge the presence in the public gallery of a group of people from Jiangxi province in China. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—LNP) (4.44 pm): It is simply outrageous that the Leader of the House has moved this urgency motion. This is about the 30th urgency motion that she has moved in two years. It indicates how inefficient this government is in managing the legislation before the House. As the shadow minister has correctly stated, this legislation is relevant to every Queenslander and it is being pushed through this chamber with unseemly haste and without the ability of each member, as is their own democratic right, to speak out about this legislation and the effects it will have on their constituents. This legislation fundamentally affects the building industry and the ability of older people in particular to sell their house. As members on this side have correctly pointed out, it is going to contribute to red tape in the building industry and it is going to contribute to the cost of selling houses. It is absolutely abhorrent that the government, once again, is trying to stifle debate in this House. Once again it shows the need for an upper house in this place. This place needs an upper house so that decisions like this are not pushed through on an ad hoc basis and with unseemly haste. Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (4.46 pm): The motion that I have put forward today means that we will have had almost eight hours of debate on this bill. It means that the 28 people who are listed to speak on this bill will have the opportunity to speak on the bill. I have actually moved this motion earlier in the day to give the opposition the opportunity of managing the rest of its time. Whether it wants to allow all of its speakers to speak or it wants to spend longer in committee, it is really up to the opposition. It is up to the opposition how it wants to manage its discussion on this bill. Any Queenslander would think that eight hours of debate—and let us face it, I have sat here for most of 3396 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009 the debate and all we are debating is one piece of paper. No-one else has had much else to say about this bill. We have heard that repeated by every single member of the opposition. Nothing new has been added to this debate. Nevertheless, we can continue to debate that until nine o’clock tonight. Most Queenslanders would think that is very reasonable. I think 28 people speaking on a bill such as this is a very reasonable debate. During the last sitting week we went till after midnight on the Thursday night. It is interesting to hear the number of people who rail against these motions who were not here when a division was called after 11 o’clock at night. I have studied that list. For example, none of the Independents showed up at 11 o’clock at night for a division and a lot of people opposite also were not here for a division at 11 o’clock at night. If the opposition wants to oppose these kinds of motions, the alternative is to continually sit past midnight. I am not prepared to let the parliament of Queensland sit unreasonable hours while we hear the opposition, speaker after speaker, repeating itself. In this case, the debate has focused on one piece of paper. Twenty-eight people are listed to speak on this debate and they will all have the opportunity to speak during the eight hours we have allocated to this bill. I move— That the question be put. Division: Question put—That the question be put. AYES, 45—Attwood, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Dick, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Jarratt, Johnstone, Jones, Kilburn, Male, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Roberts, Robertson, Ryan, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Kiernan NOES, 37—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Rickuss, Robinson, Seeney, Simpson, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Horan, Messenger Resolved in the affirmative. Division: Question put—That the Leader of the House’s motion be agreed to. AYES, 45—Attwood, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Darling, Dick, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Jarratt, Johnstone, Jones, Kilburn, Male, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Roberts, Robertson, Ryan, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Kiernan NOES, 37—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Rickuss, Robinson, Seeney, Simpson, Sorensen, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Horan, Messenger Resolved in the affirmative.

BUILDING AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from p. 3394, on motion of Mr Hinchliffe— That the bill be now read a second time. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (4.59 pm): I commend the minister for the important initiatives in the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 to address climate change and to refine other important legislation. In response to ongoing consultation with key stakeholders, the bill includes a suite of amendments to improve the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008, the Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990 in relation to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Jurisdiction Provisions) Amendment Act 2009 related amendments, and the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. The Leader of the House will be very pleased to know that I intend to talk on quite a number of areas of this bill and not just on one piece of paper. I would like to start with amendments to the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008. This introduces requirements for the microchipping of cats and dogs as a mandatory form of identification. It is a very important element of the framework for the effective management of cats and dogs within our community. We all remember back in July the story of Muffy, the long lost dog which had been missing for nine years and was able to be reunited with her owner directly as a result of her having a microchip. I see members here nodding at what a lovely story it was. More recently, there was a story of Clyde, the Tasmanian moggy, who wanted to migrate to the Sunshine State and was later found in Cloncurry. Due to his microchip, he was returned to his owners too. They are two great lovely stories. However, key professional stakeholders have recently informed the government that vets test certain dog breeds earlier than eight weeks of age for genetic eye and hearing defects. Microchipping allows the vet to then identify a dog which may have the defect amongst a litter. Identifying the defect at an early age allows the problem to be better managed. Based on this advice, the government has acted swiftly to allow microchipping of cats and dogs at an earlier age than eight weeks. 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3397

The amendment does not affect the current legislative protection against microchipping of cats and dogs younger than eight weeks. What it does is it allows microchip implanters who are vets to exercise their professional judgement on microchipping a cat or dog younger than eight weeks. For non- vet implanters, there must be a signed vet certificate stating that the microchip is not likely to be a serious risk to the health of the animal. The amendments protect the health of very young animals while providing flexibility for professionals to make the call as to whether a cat or dog is suitable for microchipping at an earlier age than eight weeks. This is practical and flexible and a reasonable extension of the current microchipping requirements. I now want to refer to the amendments to the Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Jurisdiction Provisions) Amendment Act 2009 will confer jurisdiction on the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal to hear and determine matters under a broad range of legislation, including objections against notices under the Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990. The bill inserts new provisions in the Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990 to enable assessors with particular expertise, knowledge and experience to assist the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal with expert advice during proceedings to review certain notices given under the act. To me, this makes a lot of sense. The provisions also establish a process for the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal to consider expert advice from assessors. The commissioner of the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service can appoint nominated assessors each year to assist a Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal panel during particular Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990 proceedings. Assessors may be nominated by the chief executive of the Department of Infrastructure and Planning for matters under the Building Act 1975 and by the chief executive of the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation if the building is a licensed premises. Assessors will not be tribunal panel members and they will not be responsible for decision making. However, the tribunal panel members may take into account any assessor’s expert advice in relation to deciding questions of fact. Once again, I think this is just good common sense. This will ensure that expert knowledge continues to be available during Fire and Rescue Service Act proceedings after the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Jurisdiction Provisions) Amendment Act 2009 commences and will serve community and industry stakeholders well in ensuring robust, informed, balanced and effective tribunal proceedings. With regard to amendments to the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, the bill will also amend section 870 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 to ensure that, until particular provisions of the Local Government Act 2009 commence, a reference in the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 to the Local Government Act 2009 may be taken to be a reference to the Local Government Act 1993. Both the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and the Local Government Act 2009 have not yet commenced on a day fixed by proclamation. The Sustainable Planning Act 2009 will also be amended to require decision notices issued by building certifiers to include approved plans for the development approval and state the classification or proposed classification of the building or parts of the building under the Building Code of Australia. It is very important that owners and the community know that buildings are compliant with the building code and the classification system matches the safety, health, amenity and sustainability features of the building to the intended use. This will provide improved accountability and greater certainty about the future intended uses for a building during the planning, development and construction of a building. It will assist building certifiers in the performance of their important auditing functions, certifying the minimum structural, fire safety, health, energy efficiency and amenity of a new building work from building development approval stage through to construction. I now wish to speak about the abolition of the Plumbers and Drainers Board and the introduction of the Plumbing Industry Council. I know when the abolition of the board was first announced many plumbers and retired plumbers in my electorate contacted me about this decision. The Plumbers Union also raised concerns with me, and I received correspondence from the Master Plumbers. Mr Eric Rostron from Springwood, a retired plumber, spoke to me about this matter several times. In fact, he was in Parliament House talking to me when the Minister for Public Works, Robert Schwarten, walked by. I immediately took the opportunity to stop him and introduce him to Eric, who was able to put forward his concerns to Minister Schwarten. I thank him for listening to Eric. I believe that, along with Eric, the minister also spoke to the union about this matter. The major concern raised with me was they were worried about the professionalism of their industry. They believed it could fall down without a body from the industry providing the necessary governance. I have to say that all the plumbers I spoke to—both those currently working and those who are retired—are very proud of their trade. They are very proud of the fact that today plumbing is becoming more technical. They have seen their trade go from general plumbing to more specialised areas, providing more scope and opportunity for plumbers. They want it to be regarded as a great trade and a trade that young people want to get into. They certainly want to see their great trade continue. I know that they are very committed to public safety and public health, and I certainly know they will welcome this news of an industry council. 3398 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009

With regard to the Acquisition of Land Act 1967, the amendments put forward will provide the capacity to compulsorily acquire land outside the urban footprint in the local government areas of Logan, Sunshine Coast, Moreton Bay, Brisbane, Ipswich, Redlands and the Gold Coast for the purpose of conserving koala habitat. The primary intended use of this power is to acquire non-urban land needed for rehabilitation as koala habitat where it has not been possible to negotiate voluntary purchase or a suitable conservation agreement with landowners. We have been very fortunate in my area of Daisy Hill and Springwood where we have had landowners negotiate very reasonably with the government and who have donated land to the Daisy Hill koala centre and forest area. I have been very pleased to see that happening in my area. I know this is just part of the strategy to increase the protection of the vulnerable south-east koala population as well as manage the growth demand in the south-east corner. My community certainly welcomes this. I want to thank the minister, while he is in the House, for visiting the Daisy Hill koala centre and forest. I know that he understands the importance of such strategies to my electorate and to the state. We look forward to having the minister back at Daisy Hill forest any time. I want to speak briefly about a policy announced as part of the cleaner, greener buildings policy during the 2009 state election. This policy will prevent body corporates and developers from banning energy efficient building fixtures and features. Recently I had a visit from Mr Allan Cummings and Mr Allan Miller of Aramac Developments who have concerns in relation to the number of restrictive covenants being put on new developments. They believe it is stifling the building industry in the state and it is stifling affordable housing. While I appreciate this bill will not answer all of their concerns, I believe it will answer some of them.

The policy will encourage sustainable building practices and have a positive impact on housing affordability. This will be through the reduction in costs associated with floor area, surface finish and energy costs. Homeowners who may have had covenants and by-laws impact on them will be free to have more choice in design and features. For example, they will be able to choose a single garage, the number of bedrooms, whether to have an ensuite, or choose not to have a dark coloured roof. I can remember building my first home in Springwood. I wanted a two-way bathroom with a separate vanity room instead of an ensuite. If I had an ensuite it would have meant that I would have had three bathrooms in my house. The builder kept telling me that I really needed an ensuite because everyone expects an ensuite. My words to him were, ‘Are you going to come and clean it?’ I was not going to be cleaning three bathrooms because there is more to life than cleaning bathrooms. I say to the women out there, ‘When you are building your home do not listen to the builders. You know what you need and you know how you want it designed.’ I am extremely pleased to see more choice being given to the homeowner. I commend the bill to the House. Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (5.10 pm): I rise today to give support to the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill contains important components of the government’s strategy to combat climate change through improvements in the building sector. I believe that the government has acted decisively with its innovative and nation-leading sustainable housing policy. There are many interesting aspects of this bill. I will confine my comments to a few of them. First I mention the ‘ban the banners’ policy, which ensures that conditions or caveats that are placed on new development are not a deterrent to good climate change sensitive measures.

This bill also introduces a nation-leading sustainability declaration to help raise awareness and drive the housing market to reflect the true value of sustainable housing features. If we open our local Saturday newspaper we are confronted with pages and pages of advertisements for town houses and houses. Most of those advertisements would highlight important features such as the size of the house, the number of bathrooms, the number of bedrooms, whether it has a double garage, whether it has a pool and whether it has air conditioning. Mark my words: in a short time to come, advertising for the sale of a house will contain whether the house has insulation, whether the house has inverter air conditioning or normal air conditioning and whether the house has rainwater-harvesting facilities. These are important features that consumers these days want to know. Members opposite have spent a lot of time discussing the form. Members opposite have said that no-one in this House would be able to fill out this form. Maybe I should spend some time helping them. Question No. 1 relates to the energy equivalence rating, if known. This is determined by an energy assessment. If a person does not know it, they do not have to fill in anything. How easy can it be? I happen to know that my house got a rating of 3.5 before I put in wall insulation. It should now get a rating of four.

Question No. 2 relates to energy efficient light fittings as a percentage of fixed internal lights. If a person has no energy efficient lights then the answer is zero. If they have 10 out of 100 lights that are energy efficient then that is 10 per cent. That is a little bit harder than the first one, but we will manage. 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3399

Question No. 3 relates to whether there is solar power in the house—yes or no. That is getting harder again. Question No. 6 relates to whether the house has a swimming pool or spa. A swimming pool usually contains water that is usually blue or a similar colour. One gets wet if one jumps in. That is known as a swimming pool. People have to look at their house and find out whether they have a pool or spa. Question No. 8 relates to the insulation material and the R-value of it. That is hard. Most people do not know the R-value of their insulation. The form says ‘if known’. If people do not know what it is, they simply say that they have no idea. Most people would simply say that they do not know. I happen to know that the R-value of my ceiling insulation is four and my wall insulation is 2.5. Let us pick another question. Question No. 10 relates to a covered outdoor living area. Let us think about that. If people walk outside their house, they are outdoors. If they stand outside their house and look up and they cannot see the sky then they have a covered area. I understand that members opposite have difficulty understanding some of this. I will try my best to help them. I have to apologise to the members opposite that the education system in this state has clearly failed them. I shall try to speak to the education minister to see if we can do better in the next 20 years or so. In the interests of time I shall speak to the part of the bill that I am most interested in. One of the most important aspects of this bill, I believe, is an amendment to the Acquisition of Land Act to provide new powers to enable the state to compulsorily acquire land to conserve koalas. The bill before the House provides the state with a reserve power to acquire land under emergency circumstances to conserve critical koala habitat. This is very important to my electorate. If this bill is passed, it confines the exercise of the powers to a specific area—that is, areas outside the urban footprint within the local government areas of Pine Rivers, the Sunshine Coast, Brisbane, Moreton Bay, Ipswich, the Gold Coast and Redland City. Only uninhabited land—that is, land not currently occupied by houses—in these places can be seen as eligible for compulsory acquisition. These new powers should not be seen as an out for government from voluntary negotiations. It is not intended for that purpose. Where habitat is to be acquired, the government is committed to standing in the marketplace and negotiating fair and reasonable terms. Only in the most exceptional circumstances and only after negotiation has failed will the government consider exercising these new powers. I understand that the minister will move to enshrine these principles in policies that guide the use of such powers in the near future. These new powers, along with a raft of other reforms announced on 31 October this year, form the government’s nation-leading strategy to save koalas in South-East Queensland. A government koala response strategy has been in place since December 2008 to better protect koalas and to expand koala habitat in the region by the year 2020. The new initiatives take this strategy to a new level. The new koala protection reforms announced by the Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability and the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning include: $15 million focused on buying new habitat or rehabilitating existing habitat; compulsory acquisition powers for koala habitat outside the urban footprint, as I have indicated earlier; new planning laws for councils to minimise koala impacts when assessing development applications in key koala areas; new controls for local authorities to ban dogs in new developments adjacent to koala habitats; and new planning laws to allow land swaps in and outside the urban footprint for strategic koala habitat corridors. In addition, the government strategy addresses a number of key threats to koalas and includes the development of a model local law to assist local governments in reducing threats to koalas from dogs and koala friendly designs for all new main roads. The government has also put a freeze on the clearing or disposal of state owned land except in cases where there is a need to provide urgent social infrastructure. These were key recommendations of the expert koala task force. The government is delivering on them. In closing, I thank the minister for this wonderful piece of legislation. I commend the bill to the House. Mr DICKSON (Buderim—LNP) (5.18 pm): I rise to speak about concerns with regard to the way the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill is proposed to be implemented. Whilst I do not oppose the bill as a whole, I do oppose the clauses on the sustainability declaration. The government claims that this form is for education purposes but it may be legally enforceable. In the hands of a lawyer, the sale of a house could be stopped, which will have a devastating impact on homeowners. Let us talk about the issue of affordable housing. With our uncertain economic climate, I am concerned about the cost to homeowners of attempting to meet the conditions of the sustainability declaration, particularly if their home was built some time ago. In recent times homeowners have become more aware of environmental sustainability and have built their homes accordingly. Why should long-term homeowners be penalised by not having this foresight? It will become a case of the haves and the have-nots. People who can fulfil the requirements of the document will have the upper hand in attaining a higher price for their properties. In turn, this will push down the price of people’s houses who cannot fulfil the same requirements. Unfortunately, people facing economic hardships who are relying 3400 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009 on the best price for their homes will be most affected. These people will not have the resources to carry out modifications. The document itself will only force up the price of housing. One only has to look at the first question— Energy equivalence rating (out of 10) if known. This is determined by an energy assessor This will be just another professional who people will have to engage. Furthermore, how many homeowners are aware of the R-value of their insulation or the rating of the internal tapware? This form is clearly not user friendly and I am sure that many homeowners will have to engage the assistance of a professional to complete it. If a person did not build a dwelling, where could they access the required information? It is reasonable to expect sellers to add these additional costs on to the price of the dwelling. I am concerned at the way in which this bill is being rushed through the House by a Labor government. As was mentioned earlier, debate has been guillotined again. My inquiries have revealed that a number of people involved in the property industry on the Sunshine Coast are unaware of this legislation, so I think it must have been advertised poorly or it just has not been sent out to those people who may be affected. I want to know how much in dollars terms this is going to cost the community. Will this sustainability declaration cost the homebuyer, or the seller, or both? While on that topic, electricity is part of this. We are always trying to save electricity, and it came to my attention recently that the Somerset hydro-electric dam, which puts out three to four kilowatts, has been broken down for about three years. It will cost between $2 million and $3 million to fix and it has an annual income of $1 million. But this government is not interested in that. It has been broken down for three years. That was green energy that could have powered 1,000 houses, but again the government rushes out to try to drag money out of people who just cannot afford it such as pensioners. The declaration form is a very interesting document. It is a green-coloured piece of paper which many people will be very upset about when it comes time for them to fill it out. Most people in our community do want to get involved in solar, wind and wave energy, but at what cost? Who is it going to affect? Retirees and single-income earners will be the first ones affected by this. Do we sacrifice them? I know that this government has a lot of expenditures, but it just cannot keep implementing costs on other people without realising what the impact will be. It is like Traveston Dam. It went down a certain path and got so far. Gee whiz, the government found out after spending $600 million—and that is a lot of money—that it got it wrong. It took the federal environment minister of its own party to let it know that it went down the wrong path. Sometimes it might pay the government to listen to other people in this House. We do not always get it wrong. We try to give the government advice even though it does not listen, but it would have been $600 million better off in the case of the Traveston Dam or possibly more, depending how much it loses on the sale of that property—that is, if it can sell it! If the property market picks up next year, that would be great. That takes me to that little thing that I want to compare this document to—the ETS. It is similar in a way. If America, China and India do not jump on board and we go out there all by ourselves, what is it going to cost Australia? It is like this document. If a person cannot fulfil all of the components in this document, what is it going to cost them as a homeowner? Are they going to be on the same level playing field as somebody who is forced to put all of these requirements in place? It is a good green initiative and we all like that, but what about the people who will be affected by this? How is it going to push their lives to a point where it will cost them a few extra dollars that they just cannot afford? We all know that things are pretty tough in the economy. This is a great initiative, but the government could have put a bit more thought into it. The rest of the bill is pretty good, but I really do not think that the declaration form is worth the paper it is written on. The top of the declaration form states, and I cannot overlook this— From 1 January 2010, the completion of a sustainability declaration is a mandatory requirement under the Building Act 1975 ... That means people have to do it; they do not have a choice. It is mandatory. It is like going to jail and not coming out. People like Gordon know about that, but he might get out early with a bit of a free kick. Maybe a few members of the Labor Party might help him. As the member for Capalaba said quite well—and I have a great deal of respect for him—there are a lot of easy questions to fill in. The declaration form goes on to deal with water and at W4 states— ___ out of ___ shower heads are minimum 3-star ... (or AAA rated) I thought AA was good enough in this state. It is good enough for the finances, but it is not good enough for tapware! The sustainability declaration is being rushed through parliament. It is not appropriate and I think the government is making a big mistake. If it pulls this form from the legislation, we are prepared to support the bill. However, we cannot support this form and never will because it is an initiative by the Labor government. It has the cat by the tail and those claws are coming out, and it is not going to do it any good. Just think of the people this will affect. It will have a huge cost impact on a lot of people, and they do not deserve it—like they did not deserve the cost impact of the Traveston Dam, like they did not deserve the petrol tax, like they did not deserve the sale of assets! 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3401

The government needs to be honest, up-front and accountable and take its time. It should put some work into this issue and let the people of Queensland see it. It knows that the majority of the industry has not seen it; just some in the industry have seen it. I can tell the House now that those on the coast have not seen it. It needs to expose this a bit more before it brings it into play. It is rushing it and it is going to get it wrong again. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (5.25 pm): I rise to speak to the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. I do have some questions for the minister about the declaration form, but I will address those in a few moments. I congratulate the government for bringing in what it has called ‘ban the banners’ legislation. There are a few houses that have been built very recently on the way to my place which have close to black roofs—something which is really stupid in our climate. I do not know if there is a building covenant in this subdivision, but there are a significant number of houses with these really dark roofs and no surfeit. My dad was not a certified builder, but he built two houses for us as a family with huge wide surfeits. His philosophy was this: if there is a wall big enough for a window put a window in it, because you can always close a window but you cannot open it if there is not one. Mr Hinchliffe: They would have been rated well. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: Yes. These building covenants that require subdivisions to have inappropriate coloured roofs and even ones that have building designs which have small high windows in our climate are not advantageous. So I congratulate the minister for giving homeowners an out to be able to be much more wise in the selection of materials for their houses. With regard to amendments in relation to private certifiers for buildings, private certification for buildings is still causing problems for local councils. There was an incident in my electorate just recently where a subdivision was certified privately. It complied—and I have to acknowledge this up-front—with a general interpretation of the building code, but what was left for the existing property owners was an abomination in terms of batters for the building blocks that were created behind the existing homes. The council had nowhere to go because the certifiers have no connection to council and there was no negotiation between council and the developer because, in this sense, it used private certifiers for the blocks. I want to thank the member for Springwood for clarification on animal management, and that is not a slight on the minister. I enjoyed listening to her clarification of the microchipping of cats and dogs under eight weeks of age where a vet authorises that microchipping. Certainly, we have all been touched in very much the right ways with the return of some animals after a long period of time specifically due to microchipping. It will not apply in a lot of cases but, for those cases where it is important or an asset to the animal owners, that will be great. I now want to deal with the sustainability declaration, because there has been much said about the difficulty of the form. I have to thank the member for Glass House, because I asked him if I could copy his copy of the form and he allowed me to do that. I have been through the form. I acknowledge the member for Capalaba’s test for indoors and outdoors, except there is one problem: my kids went through their bedrooms and stuck those stars up on the roof and we have visitors who think that they are sleeping in a room with no roof. So perhaps the test is flawed to an extent. There are a number of categories on this form. The first one is the energy category. It must be acknowledged that some of the questions ask for the energy efficiency rating out of 10 if it is known. So where that little proviso is put in, I am assuming that if it is unknown a person can just write ‘unknown’. In regard to the question asked about insulation material, I am assuming that if you poke your head through the manhole you will be able to see whether you have the blue paper in your roof or the batts. If that would be sufficient information to complete that bit then that is okay. I have some concerns about the water section of the form. I am thinking about people, particularly elderly people, who have lived in a home for quite a number of years. They are not going to change their taps and their toilets unless it is necessary, partly because of cost and partly because people do not do that unless they are upgrading their facilities. I do not think there will be a problem in identifying if there is a rainwater tank. The greywater system would usually be known. I acknowledge that the size of the tank in litres only needs to be provided if it is known. We are on tanks and dam water. I would not know how many litres the concrete tanks hold, but I would put ‘a lot’ in that category. In the water section of the form, W4 relates to shower heads. It asks how many of the shower heads are a minimum 3-star WELS. I would not know—and certainly my mum would not know—what a ‘3-star WELS’ is, because that is not my job in my house; that is John’s job. So I ask the minister to answer this question in his summary. If people do not know, what do they put on the form there? I am assuming it is a statutory declaration. The only thing I could think of is that if it is in an old house it would not have any star rating. If the house had old plumbing, it would not have been measured. The next question asks about internal tapware and whether it is a minimum of 3-star WELS. Again, will it be sufficient for the purposes of this document, which somebody has to sign, to say, ‘It is an old house. Therefore, probably not.’ I need to know how officious the people administering this form will 3402 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009 be. It is easy to tell if a toilet is dual flush or not, because if it is dual flush it will have two buttons. However, the 3-star WELS is a difficult question to answer. I am not being facetious. Older people have never had to live in that world and they are not going to know. Mr Hinchliffe: The guidelines will have that information. Basically, the example with those will be that if it’s an older toilet they’ll know that it won’t be. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: That is good. I was going to get to the guidelines. So dual-flush questions are easy. Most people will know if the toilet has one or two buttons. I guess the question regarding the water efficient garden irrigation system will be fairly self-explanatory. The questions relating to access are fine, because they refer to access by a level entrance or no more than three steps. So that is not a metric measurement; it is three steps. That section of the form refers to at least one accessible toilet having space around the toilet being 1200 millimetres by 1850 millimetres. The next question refers to the doorways having a clear opening of at least 820 millimetres. Again, older people have an imperial brain—feet and inches—and not a metric brain. So could that form contain questions asking in feet and inches or could people just get a tape measure and measure it? I am concerned about older people, because forms are just something that they do not understand and they are frightened by them. The only other question I have relates to the safety area of the form and the tempering device which is fitted to the hot-water system. Again, maybe the guidelines will give the direction that if it is an old hot-water system it will not have that tempering device on it. It is a statutory declaration. I assume there is a penalty involved. ‘Twenty penalty units’ is listed throughout the bill. Therefore, if someone signs this form in good faith but the information is wrong, I would be interested in knowing how punitive the minister is going to be. I went to the website. I am about the middle of the road when it comes to technology. I am not a troglodyte but I am certainly not an expert. I found it quite difficult to get to the website containing the sustainability declaration information, even when I typed ‘sustainability declaration’ in the search facility. That is why I asked the member for Glass House for a copy of the form. I eventually—and I use that word intentionally—got to the sustainability frequently asked questions section. There are some good questions and answers there and it says that there is going to be more information available, presumably close to the mandatory commencement date. I want to know whether the government is proposing in any way, shape or form to mandate retrofitting homes that are going to be for sale with some of these energy efficient and water efficient appliances? Or is it the government’s intention to just to make the declaration available to potential purchasers in the same way that you have to have a roadworthy certificate available with a vehicle? Mr Hinchliffe: Exactly. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: Okay. People need to be able to get help with that. I notice that, if the owner gets their grandson or their granddaughter to fill in the form, that owner still has to sign it. So they are vulnerable. I ask the minister to bear in mind that some sellers are older people and they are frightened by forms. So I am interested in knowing how punitive the minister intends the forms to be. One of the frequently asked questions is, ‘Where can I get a copy of the sustainability declaration?’ The answer just gives the website, www.dip.qld.gov.au. It is not easy to negotiate. Could there be a little icon put there for that? Then the site says that, for help with completing the declaration, a guideline to assist with completing the sustainability declaration will be available. I know that when you are going to put in a septic drain—a transporation drain—there is a really easy test for that. You dig a hole in the dirt where you are going to put in the transporation drain and then you empty into it a bucket of water and you measure how long it takes for that water to disappear. That way you have your absorption rate. That is fine; I can do that. If you are intending to be more punitive over the amount of water that is going to go through shower heads, toilets or whatever, there needs to be a simple test like that. Mr Hinchliffe: The guideline includes a test for shower heads. It involves a bucket and timing it. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: People can understand that. Even an older gentleman or an older lady can get a younger relative, if they have one, to do that test. But it has to be simple and it has to be accessible to people of all economic situations so that they are not disadvantaged. As I said, there are a couple of questions on the form that are more difficult to answer and there are a couple of questions with values, statements and measures that are foreign to a lot of people. However, in some of the areas the statement ‘if known’ appears, and I think that is important because people can just say ‘I don’t know’ rather than ‘I don’t care’. With those comments—and I will listen to the minister’s summary—I do not see how this document will cause a cost impost. When I first heard about the concerns raised by the opposition in relation to the declaration I was concerned but, having looked at it, a lot of it is common sense. Again, I 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3403 would be interested in hearing the government’s intended punitive measures if people get it wrong unintentionally, because it is easy to make a mistake on a form. Otherwise, I will be supporting that part of the bill, but I look forward to the minister’s summation. Mr DOWLING (Redlands—LNP) (5.38 pm): Tonight I rise to speak in support of the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, although it is with some reservation and trepidation. A number of issues have already been raised by members on this side of the House. I see in the bill a few potential minefields. I think this bill is about slogan and spin. That is something that the government specialises in. The explanatory notes refer to ‘ban the banners’. That sounds like a headline for a media release, but that is really where the bill starts and ends. According to the explanatory notes, this bill stops the bodies corporate and developers from delivering affordable housing. I think that is actually contrary to the way most people operate. I think most developers and most people in the industry strive to have a competitive price advantage. Affordability is something that they would be gravitating towards and they would be installing these measures into houses to give themselves the unfair advantage of being more affordable. It is affordability and sustainability through light coloured roofs. All this time governments of all levels—federal government, state government and councils—have all been searching for the answers to affordability. Developers and professional industry have been looking for it and the social welfare groups have been striving for it. Do members know where we found it? Well, I will be blowed. We found it with roof colour, single garages and solar hot-water systems. Who would have thought it would be so simple to have affordability? Single garages are actually a double-edged sword in many communities. Councils stipulate double or single garages if that is applicable but they try to keep vehicles off the road. Double garages are actually a benefit in many communities as the road widths narrow. We are either trying to socially engineer people out of owning motor cars or we are trying to displace cars out of garages and onto the roads, because that will be the outcome. Mr Hinchliffe: Which councils have that in their planning scheme? Mr DOWLING: I take the interjection. Certainly, the Redlands council has parking requirements for development applications, as do all building applications and all planning schemes. I am surprised the minister asked the question. This will trigger a new issue for council to address, a new issue of on- street parking. As I have said, many councils actually encourage off-street parking, through designating parking bays and garaging, for that very reason. We also have opportunities for tandem parking on driveways. These are all instruments that councils have used to try to keep traffic off the roads, not force cars back on to the roads. Yet that is what will happen. There is a benefit from a climate control point of view of having light coloured roofs. There is no doubt about that. But, again, it is a double-edged sword. In my time in council an issue that would come up from time to time through the DA process and through managing issues in the community was glare from light coloured roofs. I am sure that the minister would acknowledge that in a hilly area, where there are high-set houses next to low-set houses, light coloured roofs would create issues with respect to glare. The liveability of a house that is suffering from glare goes right out the window. There is also a secondary issue, which again comes down to personal choice. When one is looking across at a landscape of hills—say, for argument’s sake, one is looking across to Stradbroke Island—imagine looking at a sea of white roofs at Dunwich as opposed to a sea of earth toned roofs that actually blend in a little bit. Mr Hoolihan: A sea of black ones. Mr DOWLING: I take the interjection—or a sea of black roofs where one would not even see them. In my electorate glare has been a serious issue when people are trying to capture views and their liveability is pointed towards Moreton Bay. We are very privileged in my neck of the woods. Mr Hinchliffe: The council can still do that if they want. This is about covenants and body corporates. Mr DOWLING: It is also about developers. It is about single houses. This form is mandatory for every single home settlement post January 2010. We are only a matter of months away from anyone who wants to sell their home having to fill out this form. This will also create issues around sale prices. I do support the bill. Primarily it is a step in the right direction but these are the issues that will cause grief long term. These are the issues that we will be creating amendments for downstream. These are the issues that councils will have to address or the various bodies that have been established to manage these issues will have to address. The minister has failed to mention off-peak electricity systems in the hot-water category on the form. It may be an oversight. Tariffs 31 and 33 are referenced under air conditioning but not under hot water. It is a minor oversight and I am sure that the minister will address that. 3404 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009

There have been a few tense phone calls to my electorate office, and I know that the minister is fielding calls from people in the Thornlands area, about the employment precinct being taken out of the planning scheme in Redlands. The question that has been asked of me already today is: has the government by default devalued the land so that, under clause 82, it can take that land at a reduced price, at a discounted, knock-down value? There is a feeling in the community that they may have been coerced into a corner. The employment precinct has been taken out. It is an issue that is very important to Redlanders. With the Labor government’s mantra being jobs, jobs, jobs—and 100,000 of them—there were quite a few jobs in this precinct that just went begging. It has forced the ongoing daily migration to Brisbane through roadworks that have not been delivered in a timely manner. There are bottlenecks and traffic jams. I suggest that this is actually a step backwards environmentally. It is not a step in the right direction. The minister seems to be of the opinion, taken from the Field of Dreams, of ‘build it and they will come’ or plant it and they will come. That does not work with koalas. They are actually a very, very funny critter. One cannot plant trees and expect that a viable koala population will come and take up residency there. The minister’s own reports have highlighted repeatedly that koalas are nomadic. I am referring primarily to the Redlands here, but this can be extrapolated to all koala habitats. The urban koala cannot survive without the rural koala. It is about those linkages. We cannot take an area and with the stroke of a pen paint it green and enter into a tree-planting initiative with the Green Army—an employment- generating opportunity—to revegetate the world. We cannot do that and expect it to be viable and expect it to work. It will not work. There has been no science behind the koala research. It has all been politically driven, and that is what concerns Redlands residents. It has not been done the right way. The urban koala is under the greatest pressure. Through decisions of this arena and others, the development in the Redlands is through infill. We are increasing densities in the inner-suburban areas. Yet that is where the urban koala is hanging out. That is his home range. That is the greatest pressure that we are putting on our environment in the Redlands through this and other legislation. The other issue I will touch on is the sustainability declaration form itself. I do appreciate the member for Capalaba and his help in completing the form. I am pleased to advise the House that with his guidance there are a few more boxes that I can tick. As I go through it, I still have a few questions and I am hoping that the minister in his summing-up will be able to shed some light on them. Question E1 is centred around providing an energy equivalence rating out of 10, if it is known. Underneath that, it says, ‘This is determined by an energy assessor.’ I am going out on a limb here, but I suspect that an energy assessor will come at a price. I have heard the arguments that a person can fill out the form, or they do not have to fill out the form if they do not know or it is only if they know the answers that they fill out the form. If it is the case of a bit of hokey-pokey as far as filling out the form is concerned, then clearly the form is irrelevant—it is invalid and it serves no purpose other than being a touchy-feely guide. It is either designed for a purpose or it is not. It is like being a little bit pregnant. It is neither fish nor fowl. On my form next to ‘This is determined by an energy assessor’, I have written ‘This is the 100,000 jobs that the Premier promised.’ This is creative employment. This is where it kicks in. I have touched on tariffs 31 and 33 as far as electric hot-water systems are concerned. That is not picked up in the form. I am sure it is just an oversight. I am also absolutely certain that this form will go through a number of rejigs and reworkings. As for pale coloured roofs, I think that subject has probably been done to death. In the section relating to water—and I am hoping the minister will be able to explain some of these things to us in his summing-up and provide direction—the form states ‘Rainwater tank (for indoor and/or outdoor use)’ and ‘Greywater system (for indoor and/or outdoor use)’. It is my understanding—it was certainly true in Redlands and I am certain it is something that is in the Plumbing Code—that greywater cannot be used inside a house. Greywater can only be used as a subsurface irrigation system under tight regulatory controls after an inspection process. I am wondering why ‘greywater system (for indoor and/or outdoor use)’ has been included. I am hoping that the minister can clarify the issue. It may be just an matter of reworking the form and getting it right. When I talk to people and they ask me, ‘What do you talk about all day?,’ I say, ‘Labor brings up policy and they introduce things that they thought up but quite often there are bits of it they have not thought through.’ That seems to be the one consistency that I am seeing in this House. That is our role: to help think things through, to workshop them and to dot the i’s and cross the t’s. I appreciate that the member for Gladstone asked a question about star ratings for taps and, through interjection, the minister answered some of those questions, and I thank him for that. I do see that it is a complicated process. It is high risk in my assessment. While I am on the subject of water tanks in Queensland, let me talk about sustainability. That is what this form sets out to promote and it is what this bill is supposed to help achieve. One fundamental thing that we are missing in the wake of yesterday’s decision to save the Mary Valley and to scrap Traveston Dam, as it should have been—and I will ask the member for Gympie to clarify—how many years and how many days ago— 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3405

Mr Gibson: Three years, six months and 16 days. Mr DOWLING: Three years, six months and 16 days— Mr Hinchliffe: Seventeen days today. Mr DOWLING: Seventeen days. With all that in mind, there is an opportunity here for us to rethink the use of tank water in the home. I lived at Mount Tamborine for five years and we lived on tank water. In Mount Cotton, one side of the street can be on reticulated water and the other side can use tank water. That is an opportunity in relation to tanks that is going begging. The other thing I would question is on the back of the form. The form is about sustainability—and I appreciate the categories of ‘access’ and ‘safety’—but I do not believe ‘access’ and ‘safety’ have any real relevance when it comes to sustainability. Liveability? Perhaps. Good outcomes? There is no doubt about that. But as far as sustainability is concerned, I do not believe their criteria and I do not believe they should be necessarily included in this form. If the government is going to keep safety in, it has an opportunity to look at CPTED principles—that is, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design—at such things as security screens. I will wrap up because we are running out of time. In closing, I wonder if the minister has considered including other categories under the declaration where a person must sign off on the form. ‘Mr and Mrs Average’ who sell a home once or twice in a lifetime are going to be confronted with this form. The risk for litigation when a mistake is made moving forward is real; we know that for sure. When talking about a court situation, it is not about mistakes; it is about the add-in categories such as agents. They could fill out the form and they could be responsible, or the consultants or private certifiers could be responsible. It is about laying the responsibility at the feet of the person who fills out the form. Because of the gag and because we are running out of time, I will end my speech there. I will be supporting the bill. Ms GRACE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (5.53 pm): I rise to support the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, which will introduce two important sustainability measures: firstly, a sustainability declaration when houses, town houses or units are advertised for sale, which we have heard about ad nauseam in this House today; and, secondly, the government’s ‘ban the banners’ initiative that will mean that bodies corporate and developers will not be able to implement by-laws or covenants that restrict the use of sustainable and affordable design features such as light coloured roofs, smaller houses and solar hot-water systems. I live in the inner city, and I think one of its beauties is the diversity of its building structures. Just the other day I drove up Bradley Street, Spring Hill with the Minister for Transport. We slipped past my office and drove up Bradley Street. There were gorgeous little cottages, the larger type of home and commercial buildings such as shops and offices. There was a mix in a very small area that made it so attractive and so lovely and diverse. New Farm is the same. A lot of the these inner-city suburbs have the diversity that adds richness to a suburb. I am sorry to say that when I leave the inner city and venture to some of these new developments where there are covenants to ensure everyone has the same coloured roof, the same size garage or the same size home, they leave me a bit cold. I am not saying that the people in them do not make a community; however, when people standardise everything, even though it is not needed, I do not know whether it brings a richness to the suburb. That is why our older suburbs of the inner city should be so treasured by Brisbanites and Queenslanders alike. When it comes to sustainable buildings, Queensland will be leading the nation with the significant new initiatives which will help Queenslanders through financial savings and which will also help achieve the government’s Q2: Tomorrow’s Queensland’s green ambitions. I was most fortunate that the policy that was launched during the election campaign was launched at Green Square in Fortitude Valley, in the Cardno building. It was terrific to be in such a high star rated building. The minister, the member for Stafford, was there at the time. He is well aware of that building. It is a fully sustainable building. It is the way of the future that if these buildings are not going to be built the average purchaser is not going to want to touch the old style buildings. The way of the future is that we will have to become more sustainable; people are going to have to have drawn to their attention what makes their home a sustainable home because if they do not do it it is going to cost them. The consumer is going to want to know that the home actually has these devices when they come to purchase it because it would be an additional cost to install them once they have purchased. We come to this sustainability declaration. I do believe that Queenslanders will become more aware of their house’s energy, water and greenhouse gas emissions and the savings which can be achieved through the introduction of the sustainability declaration. After the member for Gympie spoke for at least 30 minutes on this form, I went to my office and downloaded it. I have to enlighten him that it took me five minutes to fill it out. It is filled out here and was completed in my office in five minutes. He took 30 minutes to rave on about the complexity of this form. Honestly, it sounded like he was filling out one of John Howard’s taxation forms! 3406 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009

I tell the member for Gympie that this form is not only easy to fill out; this form also has you thinking. It even got me thinking, which is the purpose of the form. I do want to change a toilet that I have in the laundry and I thought that three stars is probably what I need to get next time. When I saw it on the form, I thought, ‘No, three stars is not enough. Next time I do it I am going to go to four stars.’ To achieve four stars, the full flush on the toilet needs to be only 4.5 litres rather than six. That got me thinking, but the form only took me five minutes to fill out. My colleagues—the members for Broadwater, Kallangur and Ipswich West—and I have been going through these questions. You do not have to be Einstein to fill it out. Be enlightened, because it is very easy to do this. The member for Gympie clearly is not Einstein if it takes him 30 minutes to talk about a form that I completed in only five minutes. Not only does this form get the person thinking, but in the future the consumer is going to want to know what sustainability measures they actually have in their home. If people have installed them they should be proud of them. I am proud that I now have insulation, a water tank and many of the other things on this form. If I ever sell my home—and I hope I never do because I love it so much—I would be more than happy and proud to fill out this form to let the prospective purchaser know what I have done to make it a sustainable house. Anyone who takes umbrage at that has their head in the sand about the value of sustainable homes in the future. But we do not have to scratch very far on the other side of the House to find that they are climate change sceptics to the nth degree. We only have to look at the debate that is happening federally. In this case, it is the National Party taking over from the Liberal Party. We have the old Country Party that is taking over, and we know exactly what its view is on climate change. Queensland is also leading the nation with the groundbreaking ‘ban the banners’ policy, as I said. This initiative will mean that bodies corporate will no longer be able to stop people using energy efficient building elements, and I think that is a step definitely in the right direction. I not only congratulate the minister on that step but I also congratulate his department, which I know has worked hard in this area. This policy is a great policy. I was proud to be there when we launched it. It meets our election obligations. It is a simple policy when it is done in good faith and with good intentions using one’s best ability. If you know something, you put it on; if you are not sure, you do not tick the box. It adds no cost whatsoever because it only asks you to tick the things you already have. If you think it is a good idea to go further, then you can go further and put them in if you think it will sell your house. But if you do not want to, you do not have to. I commend this bill. I commend the minister. I think it is a step in the right direction because, in the future, if you do not have these things, I think the consumer will ask why. I commend the bill to the House. Ms van LITSENBURG (Redcliffe—ALP) (6.01 pm): I rise to support the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. The passage of this bill includes important amendments to the Acquisition of Land Act and the Building Act that provide sustainable outcomes and protect the future of our state. The bill will protect the vulnerable habitats of koalas by enabling the state to compulsorily acquire land outside the urban footprint, protect jobs by providing further career opportunities for building professionals and protect the health and wellbeing of Queenslanders by addressing traffic noise along designated transport noise corridors. The amendments to the Acquisition of Land Act in this bill will further ensure the conservation of significant koala habitats by providing land acquisition powers to the state under emergency circumstances. These powers will apply in designated areas outside the urban footprint in the following council regions: Moreton Bay, Sunshine Coast, Brisbane, Logan, Redland, Ipswich and the Gold Coast. Where habitat is to be acquired for koala conservation under these powers, the government will negotiate fair and reasonable terms for landowners. If negotiations between landowners and governments are unsuccessful, land would only be acquired compulsorily by the government if exceptional circumstances apply. My electorate of Redcliffe is densely populated and higher density housing, particularly along transport corridors, is being backfilled into existing residential areas. I am working with a group of local environmentally conscious residents to map and develop a wildlife corridor from the Redcliffe wetlands around Hays Inlet, along Saltwater Creek and up the South Pine River to Kurwongbah. This will give koalas and other wildlife in this highly populated region of the swiftly developing northern suburbs access ways through the centre of the Moreton Bay Regional Council region to offer resilience to wildlife populations in times of drought, fire and development when habitats are lost or under stress. In an electorate that is increasingly relying on the natural environments of Moreton Bay, Hays Inlet and local wetlands for its income, I believe these amendments are vital to ensure the basis of our economy is sustainable in the future. The amendments in this bill will ensure new developments and areas on the fringes of our urban developments will have wildlife corridors to protect our biodiversity into the future and provide much needed green areas for recreation in a swiftly growing state. 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3407

I would like to correct misleading comments made by the member for Burdekin about a proposed 20-storey development in my electorate. I have been informed by the council this afternoon that the development application for this development is currently in the information gathering stage. It has not been approved, and there is unlikely to be a decision made by the Moreton Bay Regional Council before Christmas. The developer applied for affordable housing funding under the National Rental Affordability Scheme but was turned down by our government. So the scaremongering of the members opposite about slums on the waterfront are scurrilous and it shows they are more interested in stone throwing than accuracy. People are looking for a government with strong ethics they can trust, and that is this Labor government. I also welcome amendments to the Building Act in this bill that will provide better information and protection to Queenslanders living along major transport routes and corridors, such as major roads and railway lines. The introduction of a noise code will ensure buildings used for residential purposes will be constructed to minimise the impact of unavoidable transport noise on occupants. This proposed mandatory code for residential buildings will be a first for Australia and will also result in the creation of more jobs as the building industry moves to comply. At present, we do not have a Queensland building standard to manage noise impacts generated from outside our homes. Instead, the state government currently decides case by case whether additional building requirements should apply for residential dwellings along major transport lines. These requirements are then effected using covenants placed on property titles. This lengthy and individualised process increases the assessment time and costs associated with building approvals for these developments and does not provide a whole-of-industry guide or consistent state-wide design direction for developers. We are acting to provide better certainty for developers who wish to build along major transport routes, as well as reduce delays and holding costs. This code will help the government to ensure delivery of appropriate residential developments for a growing Queensland on the ground sooner and with a consistent and acceptable level of amenity. In the past, building surveying technicians were only allowed to be employed within a designated local government area and could only perform certifying functions on residential houses and sheds under the supervision of a building surveyor or assistant building surveyor. This bill will provide opportunities for building surveying technicians to cross local government boundaries and also work in the private sector. Our government is taking steps through these amendments to address the shortage of building certifiers in Queensland while providing career opportunities for more building industry professionals. To further improve the application of the Building Act, the bill also proposes a series of minor amendments to ensure that buildings that are consistently compliant with assessment provisions are covered by a change in use where additional provision requirements, like health and safety, would apply. This means that when a building is proposed for a new use it will undergo an extra compliance check against the appropriate building assessment provisions. I look forward to seeing improvements to the building industry, amenity of residents living along the major transport routes and new jobs for Queenslanders that this bill will provide through its amendments. I thank the minister for his insight in integrating building and sustainability issues so that Queenslanders can begin to live more sustainably in the future in progressive, manageable stages. I commend the bill to the House. Mr CRANDON (Coomera—LNP) (6.09 pm): I rise to add to the debate on the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. I congratulate the shadow minister, the member for Gympie, for his very comprehensive research and response in relation to this bill. This side of the House is totally committed to the concept of sustainability, as the shadow minister made very clear in his contribution. Let us have a look at the policy objectives of the bill. One objective is to make amendments to a number of acts relevant to sustainable building practices, among other things, including amending the Building Act 1975 to ‘ban the banners’. Of course we agree with that, but let us be careful. Smaller houses, as the shadow minister mentioned, that undermine the concept of more efficient use of existing infrastructure and undermine the concept of optimising the use of land should be carefully considered. Another objective is to improve the current process for mitigating the impact of noise. We agree with that, too. Another objective is to expand the role of building surveying technicians. Once again, we agree. Let us be sure, though, that appropriate supervision is in place for these people. Under the Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002, the Plumbers and Drainers Board will be replaced with the Plumbing Industry Council. We have no issue there—and so it goes on. There is no issue, from my reading, with much of the bill. Then we come to the sustainability declaration, and I am afraid that I must object. I contacted a well-respected real estate agent from my electorate. This gentleman has been in the industry for about 45 years, so he certainly knows the industry very well. He said, in part— We were aware such legislation was due to come into force from January 2010, however our understanding is that it was to apply to new homes only. Such declaration for new homes is easily obtained. 3408 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009

Should the legislation apply to existing homes, which it appears is the case, there is very little likelihood a seller could answer these questions without the assistance of qualified trades people. As such this form will be impossible to be completed. The form would have to be simplified. Just to confirm that we are talking about existing dwellings, the website talks about the sustainability declaration form and states— It will increase the awareness and marketability of the dwelling’s sustainable building features and will act as an incentive to improve the sustainability performance of Queensland’s 1.6 million existing homes. There is no doubt; it is on the website. We are talking about all homes in the Queensland marketplace. We are going to affect every man, woman and child in the state eventually, because I would suggest that every home eventually will come under this document. When we come to the sustainablility declaration— A government member: Have you lost your way? Mr CRANDON: Yes, I lost my place. I had to go to a form. The interpretation of my good gentleman’s comments are, ‘Off you go and pay someone to complete the form because we can’t market it until you have. You’ll also be competing with other newer homes so start revising your sale price down!’. His comments go some way to refute the member for Waterford’s comment about real estate agents being able to fill out the form. I had a closer look at the small print at the top of the sustainability declaration form. I do not know whether anyone else managed to read it, but I certainly did. I just blew it up a couple of times and used a magnifying glass to have a look at it. It states at the top in six-point font, as pointed out earlier— Please complete this form. A guideline will be available to assist completion ... At the bottom of that section it says that a fact sheet and detailed guidelines are available on the website. I can inform the minister that the detailed guidelines are not there as we speak. It goes on to state— From 1 January 2010, the completion of a sustainability declaration is a mandatory requirement under the Building Act 1975 when selling a house, townhouse or unit. The form is designed to help sellers and buyers understand both how to make homes more sustainable and the potential for ongoing savings associated with sustainable features. No, it is not really. It is going to be determining whether or not you are going to get a reasonable price for your house, I would submit. I then had a look at the frequently asked questions on the website, because that is available. One of the frequently asked questions is, ‘What is a sustainability declaration?’ It states— The declaration will inform buyers about the sustainability features of a property and increase community awareness of the value of such features. It has taken the seller out of the equation and it is just talking about the buyer. So it is putting some pressure on the seller. The second question asks, ‘Is the sustainability declaration related to the contract of sale?’ The answer states— No. The declaration does not form part of the contract of sale. I will flick over to the next page. Another question asks, ‘What could happen if the information on the declaration was false or misleading?’ I would add to the question ‘even if by mistake’. The answer states— If a buyer purchased a home and the sustainability declaration was found to be false or misleading or prepared without reasonable skill and care, the seller may be liable to compensate the buyer for the loss or expense ... So here we have, ‘No, it does not form part of the contract.’ Then we have, ‘Yes, they could go after you for some compensation.’ Another question asks, ‘Could a buyer terminate a contract if the declaration is incorrect?’ The answer states— No. The buyer would not be able to terminate a contract on the basis of information contained in the sustainability declaration as the declaration does not form part of the contract of sale. That is giving a legal opinion, I would suggest, in that aspect of the questions and answers. Down the bottom it clearly states— This fact sheet— and, by the way, it is not a fact sheet; it is frequently asked questions— is not a comprehensive statement of the law. The laws referred to can be complex and various qualifications may apply to the provisions in different circumstances. By the time someone has finished reading the frequently asked questions right through and absorbed exactly what they are saying, they are nowhere near where they want to be as far as frequently asked questions and answers are concerned. On the one hand it says that it is not part of the contract. Then it says that you could be liable. Then it says, no, they could not terminate the contract. By the way, there is a disclaimer at the bottom that ‘this fact sheet is not a comprehensive statement of the law’. So all bets are off. You do not have to worry about the document. You do not have to worry about what is said there. Just be very careful what you put on that piece of paper. 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3409

The member for Morayfield said that this government is doing something, which is better than doing nothing. I respectfully suggest—and perhaps someone can pass this on—that sometimes it is better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing. I suppose as time goes on he will learn a little bit more in life and realise that it is not always better to do something, particularly if it is very wrong. The information that I have got from the website is telling me that there are some major flaws in this document. The information that I have been getting from the real estate industry is telling me they have issues with regard to this document as well. This sustainability declaration, I have to say, is by all accounts the wrong document. It needs quite a bit of revision before it becomes user friendly for existing housing stock. According to the website, we are talking about 1.6 million houses that this document is going to relate to. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—LNP) (6.19 pm): The Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill is about introducing legislative measures to help stop climate change. The minister in his second reading speech said in his opening lines— ... key components of the government’s decisive strategy to help address climate change through improvements in the building sector, while keeping its election commitments. I believe in climate change. In fact, I believe in global warming, but not global warming in the last eight to nine years, because all of the science shows that global warming has actually decreased or stopped and the average global temperature at the moment is hovering around 14.1 degrees. If one talks to any geologist or scientist, one will get very little argument about climate change. We have had climate change for hundreds and thousands of years. The last great change in global warming started about 15,000 years ago. The North American continent was covered in two miles of ice. If someone wanted to they could walk from Tasmania to China. Then the globe started heating up. Why did the globe start heating up 15,000 years ago? The globe started into a natural cycle of climate change, a natural cycle of warming because obviously there were not any man-made greenhouse gases 15,000 years ago. There were natural factors such as Milankovitch cycles. Whenever I have a debate with people about climate change and global warming, the first thing I ask them is whether they know about Milutin Milankovitch. I am sure Mr Deputy Speaker knows about Milutin Milankovitch. I ask schoolchildren about Milutin Milankovitch. Even right-wing activist Tim Flannery, who wrote The Weather Makers, devotes whole passages of his book from page 42 onwards to Milutin Milankovitch. Milankovitch was a scientist who discovered three great warming patterns in the world. There is a 100,000-year cycle, a 44,000-year cycle and a 22,000-year cycle. These cycles are caused by variations in the earth’s orbit around the sun. The earth’s orbit around the sun is not a circular orbit but is actually an elliptical orbit and it changes over time. That is what produces climate change and global warming. I know that you are interested in this, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! No. What I am interested in are the provisions of the bill that is currently before the House. We are not here tonight to debate climate change—whether it exists or not or the reasons for it. What we are here to do tonight is debate the provisions of the bill before the House. I am not convinced that that is what you are doing right now and I ask you to return to the provisions of the bill. Mr MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I refer back to the minister’s second reading speech where he says— This will also help address climate change impacts from our considerable existing building stock by invalidating new covenants ... As well as the provisions relating to climate change, there are also provisions made in the sustainability declaration form for outlining greenhouse gases. At the end of this form under ‘Household report card’ people are actually asked to add up the approximate kilograms of greenhouse gas emissions from annual household electricity use. That would lead us to say: what is a greenhouse gas? I believe that most people really do not have an understanding of what greenhouse gas is. When we say ‘greenhouse gas’ most people think it is a bad thing. If we ask a schoolchild what greenhouse gas or CO2 is, they say it is bad.

The reality is that there are 30 different gases within greenhouse gas. CO2 is just one of those gases. They also include methane and nitrous oxide. CO2 is about 375 parts per million in the greenhouse gases. The overwhelming majority of greenhouse gas is water vapour—H2O. More than 95 per cent of the official greenhouse gas is water vapour.

What I have real concerns about is this demonisation of CO2 within this bill and within common literature that the government is putting out. CO2 is in fact a plant food. If members want to find out how dangerous CO2 is, they should go out to the edge of my electorate near Alloway and look in the greenhouses there. They will find that the operators elevate the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in 3410 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009 those greenhouses from 375 parts per million up to around 1,400 parts per million. They quadruple it. What happens when they do this is that the plants inside the greenhouses actually grow faster and thrive. I find a lot of rot is being spread in current science. People are repeating myths rather than scientific facts. Can we stop climate change? The government would have us believe that if we pass this bill we can stop climate change. That is implicitly in the minister’s second reading speech. The government would have us believe that we can stop climate change by paying more money to Kevin Rudd or governments in the form of a carbon tax or an ETS. Mr Wettenhall: That is ridiculous! Mr MESSENGER: I will take the interjection that that is ridiculous. Of course it is ridiculous, but that is the reality of the future in Queensland and Australia. This little bill will add to the overall charges we will have to pay for the privilege of having an emissions trading scheme in place. What that is going to mean is that each household in Queensland will probably be paying anywhere from $3,000, $4,000 or even $5,000 extra each year for the privilege of having a carbon tax or an ETS. What this bill is doing is paving the way for another tax. Once a household has declared on this form, which they must do, the amount of greenhouse gas emissions then it is quite easy for any government—it could be a state government—to levy a fee on the amount of bad greenhouse gas, that nasty CO2 which they are saying is bad. Then we will probably have to start paying a tax. What I see with this provision is that the government, in a very sneaky and underhanded way, is possibly preparing the way for a new government charge or tax. The sustainability form states— If a real estate agent is used to market the property, the form will need to be provided to the agent by the seller to enable them to advertise the dwelling in accordance with the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000. We have found out from other members of this House that if people do not use this form in the marketing of their house then they are up for a huge fine or if they fill this form out incorrectly they are up for a fine of $2,000. This is a mandated form. What we obviously have here is more red tape. The minister says in his second reading speech that the policy will also help reduce the cost of homes. What a complete fraud! What a complete furphy that is! How can more red tape actually reduce the cost of selling a home or reduce, as the minister said, the cost of homes? This, by its very nature, is going to add to the cost of our homes. How can red tape not add to the cost of homes? Of course it will. This is just a sneaky little way of preparing the way, I believe, for a new state government charge. Once the ETS comes in, once Kevin Rudd has his way, then we have a form laid out neatly—it is just like a tax return—and the bureaucrats can go along and say, ‘Look, that house is producing this much bad CO2. We will charge them this much.’ It will be like a rates notice or a water notice. It will come out and everyone will have to pay it. I look forward to the discussion of the clauses to see what the minister has to say about this. The government has tried to sneak this through parliament. This is the first time that this form has actually seen the light of day. It is being rushed through in unseemly haste. The government is using the guillotine provision to push this legislation through without proper scrutiny in this place. That adds to the evidence before us. It is a compulsory form which will add to the cost of housing in Queensland. This is, as I said, a form which is preparing us for a new state government greenhouse tax. This is a mandatory form. Sitting suspended from 6.30 pm to 7.30 pm. Mr MESSENGER: The minister in his second reading speech of the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill said— Consultation in 2008 indicated strong support for a new process and code setting noise standards for buildings in transport corridors. This will provide certainty for developers and reduce delays and holding costs for developments. Mandatory requirements of this nature will be an Australian first. Local governments will also have the ability to designate transport noise corridors. I am sure that everyone in this place is aware of the housing affordability crisis that has hit Queensland. Costs are rising and will rise even further once the ETS is put in place. That will be a tax on everything—fuel, food, building. As well as the affordability crisis in private housing, there is also an affordability crisis looming in developments. I have been contacted by a local developer in Bundaberg who has expressed his concern as to the rapid loss in commercial viability of undertaking development in Bundaberg. He said in a letter— You will find at the base of this letter an email that was sent by return to Insite Strategies and BRC staff which stems from an earlier application to host Biga Apprentices on our site at Northside Industrial Park, Bundaberg. The simple facts are that we constructed ‘as of right’ two light industrial buildings, approved in March 2008 and completed by 30 June 2008. BRC, in an approval dated mid-August 2008, tried to charge us $34,000 in headworks for additional headworks to shift the use from light industry to general industry. 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3411

Your headworks charges are no different for light industry to general industry, as per your own policies, and yet we have now spent an additional $6,000 i.e. $1,000 to Council, $5,000 to consultants to argue this matter. Add to this the $8,500 to develop and lodge the original application, to date there is no result, a $14,500 bill and an additional potential liability of a further $34,000 and for what? The ability to train apprentices and upskill the local labour force in the Bundaberg area. Are these charges to make up for shortfalls in reduced State Government funding? The point that that gentleman is making is that, since the forced council amalgamations, which cost plenty—$16 million in the Bundaberg Regional Council—the council is now scrambling to find extra funds to pay for its costs and outgoings. This bill deals of course with more regulations in terms of building developments, and we have to be very careful not to overregulate the industry and add more red tape and more unnecessary costs for developers. He goes on to say— Our investment in Bundaberg is based on a sustainable economy with modest to good potential for growth. That growth appears to be frustrated by excessive costs especially for small businesses, from which we all know larger business grow. A recent example was the ‘coffee cart’ previously located inside Bunnings—the business owner investigated relocating to Northside Industrial Park after Bunnings resumed his lease for their own retail purposes. This 20 square metre operation, in a 40,000 metre industrial park, required $10,000 in application and consultancy fees excluding hydraulic engineering and traffic impact assessments which could have been added at Council and/or Main Roads discretion. The minimum cost of asking the question without any certainty was $10,000, and about three months, to a maximum of about $23,000 in seven months. (That a small business owner would have to commit over four years rent just to ask the question as to where he could operate raises serious concerns). Can a one man coffee show even afford to do business in Bundaberg? When previously I have raised these issues I have been informed that your charges are similar to, or slightly less than the Fraser Coast Council. I would respectfully ask you to reflect on the following—whilst your bid to extend the runway in Bundaberg is commendable, it will (with the advent of daily Sydney flights) put Sydney the same commutable time away as Hervey Bay and Melbourne closer than the Sunshine Coast. You may well end up exporting your job creators to southern states where your real competition is, not just locally. The hard facts are that a retirement village unit attracts $35,000—$40,000 in government charges in Queensland versus $6,000 in Victoria. We have a major problem in the economic development in the Bundaberg region especially if it is Council’s wish to grow and broaden this economic base. I am not clear nor confident that these major economic issues are being addressed. While you are called ‘local government’ your competition isn’t within 100km, it is Australia wide. That is a salient point for members in the chamber tonight and for the minister to realise—that is, every little piece of red tape that goes on top of building charges for both private and commercial operators is hamstringing our efforts to maintain credible and profitable businesses in Queensland which, of course, are the ones that create the real jobs. The government does not create jobs. It is the private industry that creates jobs. It is the private industry that creates the jobs for apprentices while the government seems to be very good at creating red tape and false jobs. This declaration form will create jobs: it will create a new job for someone to come in to try to help fill out this form, because it is a complicated form once you start getting into it. Once you start getting into it, it is a complicated form. However, that job is not a productive job. It actually eats into the profitability of private owners and it will also eat into the profitability of developers. In the brief time I have left, I want to speak to the issue of mandation as contained in this declaration form. Mr Finn interjected. Mr MESSENGER: I take the interjection from the member; I was just about to say that. Whenever one sees the word ‘mandate’ in legislation, they know that the legislator means business. The government mandates extra red tape for home sellers, but it will not mandate things that really matter to Queenslanders like giving them the right to know if a repeat child rapist has been let out of jail and moved next door because that is secret. It will not mandate three months automatic jail for thugs found guilty of seriously assaulting police, prison officers, fire officers or ambulance officers. Mandation is not part of the government’s vocabulary on those important issues, but the government will mandate this extra piece of red tape. In closing, the declaration form creates a new green industry. It will add costs of anywhere from $500 to maybe $1,000. Who knows what the cost is going to be by the time it is added to the real estate agent? I commend the shadow minister for his accurate summation of this legislation. I support him 100 per cent and will be vehemently opposing this particular provision with regard to the sustainability declaration form during the consideration in detail stage. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—LNP) (7.39 pm): This bill we are debating tonight is about a number of things, but particularly it is about putting sustainable and affordable design features in houses. It introduces a number of matters that the shadow minister has spoken about that make sense. But, as he alluded to, the real problem with the bill is in the detail. The sustainability declaration imposes some almost crazy measures and creates more red tape. This bill deals with a number of matters to do with the affordable design of houses. Yet the minor reductions in cost that might be achieved by some of these measures pale into insignificance when they are compared with the massive cost increases that most people are finding in the cost of buying land and building a new house. That cost increase has been brought about as a direct result of the massive debt that this government got itself into in the boom times. 3412 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009

Home affordability is very important, particularly for people buying their first block of land on which to build their first home. For example, in Toowoomba $6 million in annual grants have been withdrawn. As a result, headworks charges have gone up massively. This bill brings in measures such as allowing people to have one garage instead of two under a covenant, but at the same time in most cases the price of land for people, particularly young couples who are buying their first block of land for their first home in a subdivision on the outskirts of town, has gone up massively by tens of thousands of dollars because of this government withdrawing annual grants from councils and the forced amalgamation of councils, costing councils many millions of dollars. Mr Wallace: I rise to a point of order. The member for Toowoomba South is misleading the House. The government has not withdrawn any grants to councils. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Ryan): Order! There is no point of order. Mr HORAN: As I said, the annual grants that were announced in the budget this year have been withdrawn. They are no longer receiving those grants. Toowoomba is going to miss out on $6 million a year. Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members to my right, will you cease interjecting. If you have a valid point of order, please raise it. Apart from that, the member for Toowoomba South has the call. Mr HORAN: So whilst we are debating tonight some measures that allow for the pitch of roofs, the orientation of buildings and so forth, people are facing massive increases in housing costs, mainly through increased headworks charges, because of the forced amalgamations of councils and because of the taking away of the annual grants to councils. The issue of ‘ban the banners’ has some merit, but I suggest that a bit of caution is also needed. Over the years we have seen the development of covenants in various estates. The majority of people who buy land in an estate and who put their hard-earned money, their savings and their borrowings from a bank into a home like to think that the estate is of a good standard. So gradually covenants have crept in, such as houses in suburbs being built in brick, having a certain coloured roof, having landscaping and so on. We often make comment that a lot of young couples now go into a new home and they have everything—the landscaping, the curtains and everything else is there. For some people, because of their financial circumstances, it might be a lot easier for them to be able to do those things in year or two. My wife and I raised our first two kids in what used to be called a temporary dwelling. It was 28 foot by 12 foot. People were able to do that on acreage on the outskirts of town. People lived like that for two or three years until they had enough money to build a house. It saved them from paying rent. I would not recommend it, but that is how a lot of young couples got started—by living in a caravan on their block. That way they got a start without having to pay rent. I am not suggesting that we should have that style of living. I think some of the provisions in this bill make some sense, provided that eventually, if a standard is trying to be met for a suburb—and the modern planning of suburbs is about having koala corridors, parklands, wastewater collection areas, recycling areas, a good standard of roads, landscaping and everything else—that standard is met at some time. But again, I say that you have to treat those measures relative to this massive increase in the cost of land that is occurring because of red tape, forced amalgamations, the withdrawal of grants and so forth. The sustainability declaration, which is an integral part of the bill, is another example of how Labor likes to get into everybody’s lives. One of the members of the opposition said that a total of 56 questions had to be answered. We have heard some people from the government side—particularly the member for Brisbane Central—wax lyrical about how easy the form was to fill out and how they were able to do it in five minutes. People sell houses in all sorts of different circumstances. Some people who are selling are very old. They live on their own and they want to move into a retirement village or a nursing home. Sometimes those people do not have any family with them. Other people who are selling are still in the stages of grief, or job transfer, or tragedy, or whatever. Be that as it may, the very first question on the declaration talks about an energy equivalence rating. It states— This is determined by an energy assessor. We all know that when legislation is introduced into this House all we are doing is adding to red tape, the bureaucracy and process. So much of life and so much of the cost of living today revolves around process. There are very few people who are making things that can be sold or exported compared to the number of people who are involved in process. We have people sitting down tapping away at their computers checking forms, signing them off—doing all of these sorts of process things that we introduce all the time in this parliament. Every time we bring in legislation it has associated with it more and more red tape. 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3413

Members can stand here and say, ‘We don’t mean to do this and we don’t mean to do that.’ The minister can say, ‘They don’t have to answer one or two of these questions’ but this process will develop. The form is mandatory. At the very end of the form people have to sign it and it states—and this will frighten many old people—that they are aware that it is an offence under the Building Act 1975 to provide misleading or false information. That is how serious this form is. The lawyers will have a field day with this form. Anyone who wants to pull out of a sale can say, ‘That greywater tank is not actually 500 litres; it is only 250 litres.’ Even though it is buried in the ground, they will be able to get out of the contract. There will be that many loopholes to get out of a contract with this form being introduced. When you look at the energy segment of this form you really start to wonder what on earth it is going to achieve. The energy that is used in a house depends on how many TVs there are—or whether the TV is a 48-inch TV or a 20-inch TV—how many electric clock radios there are, how many microwaves there are, how many jugs there are, how many vacuum cleaners there are or how long the kids leave the lights on for. None of that information will be on this form. This form just asks you to list the total amount. What is the minister trying to do with this form? It makes absolutely no sense at all. It does not prove anything whatsoever. How will people deal with issues such as ‘3-star WELS>>(or AAA rated)’? This will grow; people will want something else on the form. Half of this is about access and safety. It is nothing to do with sustainability. What do walking in on the same level or going up two steps, or one hob-less—step free— shower or grab rails have to do with sustainability? It has nothing to do with the environment or sustainability. This is crazy. I can see some jobs in the process. The doozy is that when we get down to the household report card it asks for the annual household electricity costs. As I said, it depends on how well the head of the house polices whether the lights are left on or not, whether the outside light is left on or not, how many electrical appliances there are in the house, how long they are left on, whether they are left on at night—and on and on. Annual household electricity costs would mean absolutely nothing to the buyer because it would depend on the discipline and the system that that household employs and the number of appliances that they use. Then it goes on to greenhouse gas emissions. A person has to work out using a formula the approximate kilograms of greenhouse gas emissions from the annual household electricity use. Do not say that this is looking at reds under the bed, because it is not. There will be a figure and it will not be long before the government will think up a little scheme. Half the population thinks that greenhouse gases and global warming might be true; the other half think it may not be true— Mr Wallace: Do you believe it? Mr HORAN: I have read a lot of things. Mr Wallace: Yes or no? Mr HORAN: I take the interjection. I have read a lot of interjections—books. I will write a book about interjections one day so that people can read about some of the inane ones that have come from the member for Thuringowa. As the member knows all too well, we were once covered in ice so I guess we have had climate change forever and ever. This form will deliver a greenhouse gas emission figure for every house. That leaves the door open for a tax on the house and a tax on the family. That will happen one day. A person has to fill this form in. It is mandatory. A person cannot sell their house unless they fill it out. Then there is the offence and the penalties under the Building Act if they provide any misleading information. This government cannot seem to allow people to run their own show. In normal advertising for real estate people have the sense to say that they have three 10,000 gallon rainwater tanks. Everybody now has to do it. Business runs properly without the need for all this sort of stuff. We will end up with people who will say, ‘We will fill this out for you. We will only charge you $250 or $300 or $500. We will get it accurate. It might help you sell the house.’ We will just see the red tape grow and grow. It is Big Brother again. This is the nanny state. It seems to be the way that this government works. This government has no big ideas to make things really happen like— Mr Wallace: Like the pipeline to Toowoomba? Mr HORAN: There was not much thought from the Premier or the Deputy Premier when I went to see them about putting a weir on all the stormwater that flows out of Toowoomba down Gowrie Creek. It is only 17 kilometres to pump it to Cooby Dam on the same altitude. You would be right into the reticulation system. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Toowoomba South, your comments will come through the chair. Mr HORAN: Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I take that interjection. It would have been a fraction of the cost. The minister is aware, with that interjection, that the government is charging Toowoomba $112 million for that at the same time that the council is losing its annual grants from the government. The government provided a water grid for the people of South-East Queensland for free. The minister did not do much for Toowoomba. He provided everyone else with something and then charged the people of Toowoomba $112 million. 3414 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009

The issue of water tanks is a far bigger issue than filling out forms. If people have proper tanks attached, the average house, with the average rainfall that most towns and cities in Queensland have, can actually catch the bulk of the water that it needs for a whole year. In an area that gets 30 inches or above in rainfall, it is not difficult for a reasonably sized house with the adequate number of tanks to catch 250,000 litres a year from the heavier falls that might come during the summertime. That would certainly be a lot better for people. The form deals with solar electricity. One of the problems people have is that they go to the expense of putting in solar power and then they are charged an access fee. I get this complaint from many people. They put in a solar system and they provide all their own power, yet they still have to pay an access fee because the power runs past the property. It certainly does not provide a great deal of encouragement for people because of the capital cost that they have to meet to put in the solar power system. It certainly does not provide much of an incentive. This bill deals with the restrictions that are involved with covenants on new subdivisions. I certainly hope that, whilst allowing young people to build and to move in in an affordable way, it does not downgrade the quality of a suburb or a housing estate for everybody else in the future. The bill also deals with matters to do with the Queensland Development Code and building surveying technicians. I know that we will be dealing with this issue of the declaration when it comes to the clauses, but I just want to reiterate that this is red-tape overkill. Here is another process. We have already had put in place in the contract of sale process all these sentences that have to be in big words and warnings and so forth. We have a cooling-off period in the process for selling a car. People should be able to say, ‘I will wait and I will make up my mind later on.’ All of this involvement in and interference with the way that people live and work makes for more red tape. It will complicate the whole process of selling a house. It might be easy for people with education who have time, computers and the records of what they have in their house. Other people do not know because they have bought from someone else. It will be very difficult for some people and will cause problems. It will add to the transaction cost of selling a house and will make doing business in Queensland a little more difficult. It has become expensive enough to do business in Queensland with the new petrol tax, the greatly increased registration costs and the massive increase in electricity costs. On the subject of electricity, the sustainability declaration has columns on the side talking about the average cost of electricity to a home. Those opposite will be changing that dramatically with the way they are going. With the 45 per cent increase over a period of two years they will be printing a new form three times a year. It will certainly show up the massive increases that are coming, in particular from the complex system of water supply they have set up that is predicted to increase the cost of water by 300 per cent for the people of Queensland between 2007 and 2013. This declaration is bureaucracy gone mad; it is bureaucratic overkill. It is setting the scene for every household to have a figure for their greenhouse gas emissions. Members opposite can say what they like about it, but it will be there. Every house that is sold will be required to have a figure for the greenhouse gas emissions of that place. That could introduce all sorts of temptations in the future for a cash-strapped government that will owe about $100 billion and will be looking to introduce some sort of a crazy additional tax scheme. (Time expired) Mr BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (7.59 pm): I rise to speak to the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill before the House tonight and also to put on the record my severe reservations with respect to aspects of the bill, particularly in relation to the sustainability declaration. Government members interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: Members opposite are surprised! May I premise my speech by welcoming 11 of my family and friends to the gallery this evening. Mr Sorensen: Aren’t they going to get a shock? Mr BLEIJIE: They are in for a show. In particular, I welcome my wife, Sally, on her second visit to parliament and my two daughters, Taylor and Madison. No doubt those opposite will contain themselves during my speech so as not to upset my little ones. I thought I ought to place on the record my disgust with which the Labor Party treats the conventions of this parliament. Government members interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: I did say for the other side to behave, not me. I, of course, refer to the guillotine provisions moved by the Leader of the House today. For some dumbfounded reason, the Leader of the House used the excuse to declare this bill urgent that she had heard comments from the speakers today that are somewhat similar in nature. When there are 89 members of parliament elected individually to represent quite diverse areas of Queensland and they debate one piece of legislation, I submit that 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3415 there is potentially going to be some discussion that overlaps. That is what we are elected to do. That is what the taxpayer pays us to do. If it means working till midnight, those on this side of the House are happy to do it. It is a shame that those on the other side of the House do not share the same enthusiasm and commitment to their constituents as we do on this side of the House. We are happy to debate this bill well into the night. The bill before the House makes a number of amendments to the relevant acts including the Building Act 1975, the Plumbing and Drainage Act, the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act and various other acts. At the outset I have to say that encouraging sustainable development should be at the forefront of every town planning scheme in the state. In my electorate of Kawana, I am proud to have a property that has just been constructed called The Edge. This commercial complex achieved a four-star green star rating of best practice standard by the Green Building Council of Australia. I believe it is one of the first in Australia to receive that rating. Mr Hinchliffe: You can fill out the form. Mr BLEIJIE: They did not have to fill out a form. The design and construction of the complex was completed by the RGD Property Group, which is also based in the electorate. The rating was a significant achievement for the developers as they continue to raise the bar in delivering sustainable developments on the Sunshine Coast. The property includes a waste management plan to divert greater than 60 per cent of construction waste by mass from landfill. Each tenancy is metered individually, with an additional submeter for tenancy air conditioning to allow the tenancy lighting and equipment to be determined separately. The design provides 42 secure bicycle storage racks and lockers, six showers and change rooms for staff and 14 secure visitor bicycle racks such that 10 per cent of the staff have access to bicycle facilities. All of the roof areas convert rainwater and divert it to a 105 cubic metre rainwater tank, harvesting for reuse in toilet flushing and landscape irrigation. The concrete used in the project has 25 per cent recycled cement replacement content and the structural steel used in the project consists of 90 per cent post consumer recycled content. This is naming just a few of the sustainable qualities identified by the Green Building Council of Australia. I say congratulations to the development industry for its efforts with that project and its continual pursuit of excellence in the construction of sustainable building developments. The ‘ban the banners’ component of this bill is a necessary step in ensuring that affordable housing measures are made available for future generations of Queenslanders. Since being elected in March, I have met most of the key industry and relevant stakeholder groups in the Kawana community, and the issues of land lock and affordable housing continue to be at the forefront of most developers’ minds. While I do not think that there is a need for housing developments that see all blocks of a similar size jammed into streets one metre apart, ensuring that neighbours live on top of each other—which is a negative aspect—I believe that there needs to be a balance of high, medium and low-density options offered in each development as we need to continue to strive for affordable housing measures that ensure the great Australian dream of owning one’s home is achievable in a housing market that continues to rise in median price. In a region such as the Sunshine Coast, where population growth continues to increase exponentially, developers need to continue to ensure that there is a range of affordable housing options on offer for different ends of the market. Government and council must also ensure that there is sufficient land available for this type of development. The ‘ban the banners’ policy will ensure greater flexibility for property owners and bodies corporate in offering a range of products to a market that is increasingly diverse in terms of sustainable living options. I abhorrently oppose the introduction of the mandatory sustainability declarations in this bill. I could not possibly let the chance go by tonight without speaking about it. This initiative is poorly thought out, and it was obviously the second condition put on the Greens preferences deal given to certain ALP candidates that we have seen introduced into this House following the March election, and to include it in this bill is nothing other than a smokescreen. The government is keen to talk about sustainability. However, I am beginning to wonder if smoke of this density is sustainable at all. While the government may continue to claim that the mandatory sustainability declarations component of this bill is for educational purposes, the amount of red tape or, in this case, green tape that continues to increase under this government is why this state is now considered the ‘nanny state’ of Australia where there are regulations and red tape upon regulations and more red tape to the detriment of all Queenslanders and industry. The implementation of this form is obviously designed to promote the awareness of energy consumption. After reading the two-page document, I have to say that it is as confusing as it is ridiculous. The purchase of a new dwelling is daunting enough with all the legal documents and financial requirements without this unnecessary and confusing document being added to the list—all for the purpose of satisfying a preference deal struck by Labor and the Greens at the last election. For this reason, the opposition opposes this component of the bill. 3416 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009

May I suggest to the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning that, instead of this poorly set out two-page form that is a mandatory requirement for all new homebuyers, if the government wants to embark on an education program to increase community awareness of sustainability features and to promote sustainability features in homes then perhaps a leaflet of green tips could be sent to homebuyers after the settlement of a property has been reached. This would achieve the educational outcomes desired by the department and also reduce the mandatory green tape obligations of all new buyers put on to them by a dodgy Greens preference deal. As a lawyer who practised property law, I have to say that over the years I have seen PAMDA tinkered at the edges and go through some major changes with respect to disclosure and warning statements—so much so that in Queensland we have a situation where a seller or a seller’s representative must give a warning statement warning the buyer of the existence of another warning statement. Now to topple that, we are adding further pressure to this administrative burden by requiring the sellers to complete these forms with every sale. It is a nightmare for consumers, sellers, real estate agents and lawyers practising in the field. The PAMDA legislation is still being litigated to find out what it all means, despite the regulations and the amendments to the legislation coming into force in 2006. I have even used the provisions of PAMDA—and other lawyers in this House may admit to it—as a loophole to get clients out of particular contracts. That is what they paid me for. The bill has sufficient loopholes to allow lawyers to do that. I note that the bill does provide in a particular clause that buyers will not be able to terminate the contract due to mistakes or misleading information in the form. However, I do not hold confidence that that will stand up, particularly as opposed to misleading and deceptive conduct. I say to the minister that I do believe that we need to revisit PAMDA and even look at the system of sellers’ disclosure. We have to get the priorities right here. I can understand where we would potentially require sellers to disclose such information as local government approvals for improvements or infrastructure on the property, but here we are dealing with such things as light bulbs, laminate on glass and a pale or light coloured roof. The minister should really treat Queenslanders with a bit more respect and give some more credit to them. Minister, when we are walking up to a house that we are looking at buying, some of us can work out ourselves whether it has a black roof or a cream roof. I do not really need the government to force the seller to tell me that. I can also work out without the minister’s help—although he has good intentions—that a black roof is likely to be hotter than a cream roof. Mr Messenger: Wow! Mr BLEIJIE: It is a fascination, wow. Look at the stunned crowd. I do not need the government to force the seller to tell me that. Mr Gibson: I think they might. They may need that help. Mr BLEIJIE: I take the interjection. It is possible that they just might. One thing that has surprised me out of all of this debate is that I would have thought my honourable colleagues with law degrees on that side of the House would have joined me in talking about the negative aspects of this declaration and the legal implications that it has. Unfortunately, no-one has. In all of my discussions with lawyers outside this place, I have found that even real estate agents believe this to be a logistical nightmare. When the government passes the bill tonight, the honourable minister will have to take responsibility for this. He will have to take responsibility for additional administrative charges from real estate agents. He will have to take responsibility for additional charges caused by some people who have to hire professionals to assist with the forms. He will have to take responsibility for additional legal fees charged by lawyers in providing professional advice on the legalities of the form. At the end of the day, it is a legal form—signed, sealed and delivered; unsealed and delivered. Ms Grace interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: I take the interjection from the member for Brisbane Central. Let us talk about the member for Brisbane Central’s contribution to the debate. She told us she could fill the form out in a quick matter of time. She probably could, but not much would be completed on the form. She may have a couple of ticks. In fact, when challenged on this during the honourable member’s speech, through the opposition’s vigorous interjections, the member could not tell us if she knew the answer to all of the questions. We then had the member for Morayfield, another esteemed lawyer in this place, talk about little old ladies. I take his point, but I will say that the shadow minister and others on this side of the House certainly were not patronising towards little old ladies. We simply make the point that, when you have an elderly person completing these types of forms, it is cumbersome and unnecessary and they should not have to deal with it. If they want to sell their house, they should be able to sell their house— Mr Gibson: What have you got against little old ladies? Mr BLEIJIE: Yes, what have you got against little old ladies? 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3417

Mrs Miller: What have you got against them? Mr BLEIJIE: I have got nothing against little old ladies. Mrs Miller: Will you help them fill that out? Mr Hoolihan: Yes, and he charges for it. Mr BLEIJIE: It is another tax for little old ladies; I take the interjections. If they want to sell their house, they should be able to sell their house without having to explain to buyers whether they have installed energy efficient light bulbs, whether it is a gas cooktop or an electric cooktop or whether there is insulation in the roof. That is why the buyers get building and pest inspections. The back of this form asks whether you have a smoke alarm installed or a safety switch installed, but the legislation currently provides that. If any honourable members opposite had picked up a contract at the REIQ lately, they would have seen that it is a requirement to fill that out. Mr Rickuss interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: I will not take that interjection. Parliamentary privilege will not extend to that. They pay. It is a buyer beware environment. The buyer pays for professionals to tell them these things and we should not have to be doing this. I have three shower heads in my house. I have three showers. Mr Sorensen interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: We run a family day care from home so it is for the downstairs. I notice one of the members tonight talked about not wanting an ensuite because of the cleaning and so forth, but I have three shower heads. I would not have a clue after reading this form if they are three-star WELS rated. When you buy them, you get a plumber to install them. I did not keep the packet in the shelf so I could say to my daughters every day, ‘Look, this is a three-star WELS rated shower head. Anna Bligh is going to be happy with me.’ This is nothing more than another green tape, bureaucratic nightmare that ultimately the Queensland public will have to wear. They will have to wear more costs and more red tape, and this is happening again and again always under a Labor government. With respect to the amendment of the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act— Government members interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: I can take the interjections but please limit them to one at a time so I can deal appropriately with them. Mrs MILLER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Could you please rule on the repetitive drivel that this member is coming up with? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): That is not a point of order. I would ask all members to give the member for Kawana the consideration he is due. The member for Kawana has the floor. Mr BLEIJIE: Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. They just cannot stand hearing my drivel. That is the problem; they cannot stand hearing it. Let us turn to another matter in the bill—that is, the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act. I support the provision which provides for the microchipping of animals under eight weeks of age by accredited veterinary professionals as long as it is deemed that it is not likely to be considered a serious health risk to the animal. I understand that in certain cases there needs to be more flexibility in this regard and I am happy to add my support to the proposed legislative amendment in that regard. I am disappointed with the knee-jerk response from the minister in mandating the sustainability declaration. Regardless of any preference deals done with the Greens, I think the educational outcomes that are trying to be achieved here could be done in a far less restrictive way. While it is important to encourage sustainability features into new or existing dwellings, mandating this tricky, poorly constructed sustainability declaration is not the answer. Can those members opposite answer this question, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker: how many business days are there before this is introduced—before every seller for every property sold in Queensland will have to fill out this form I am holding? The silence is deafening. There are 35 business days. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kawana will not hold up that information. Mr BLEIJIE: Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Rickuss: Only 35. Mr BLEIJIE: There are 35 days to implement one of the biggest restrictive changes under the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act in Queensland. That will affect every seller. We had the other amendments to the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act a few years ago. It has taken three years— Mr Rickuss interjected. 3418 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009

Mr BLEIJIE: That is exactly right. It has been three years, and lawyers are still litigating it because lawyers cannot understand it. There has been case after case going through the courts because of the legitimacy of real estate agents or sellers learning how to prepare these documents, and now we are going to be doing it all again. We will have another debate in three years where we are back to this point that we as an opposition have raised tonight. The government will not listen. I cannot for the life of me understand how the qualified lawyers on that side of the House who have practised in the property law industry can stand up in this place and say that this is a positive move for Queensland. If they have practised at all under the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act, I cannot understand how any lawyer, real estate agent or seller would want this, because at the end of the day this is all about common sense. It is common sense for a buyer to walk in and ask a question about a dishwasher. It is common sense for a buyer to walk in and ask whether the house has been insulated. It is common sense for a buyer to walk around a house and say, ‘Gee, there’s not a tank connected to this pool. I’ll get one or I’ll negotiate with the seller to get them to fork out a couple of grand to install a rain tank.’ But putting this administrative burden on Queenslanders selling their house at this time is outrageous. It is an incompetent decision. It is a rushed decision. I can tell the House that when this starts in January next year to the surprise of the many who I have talked to who do not even know this is coming—they certainly will after tonight— Mr Messenger interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: It is a complete surprise. There has been no consultation. In the consultation that I have conducted, I phoned many people to talk about this bill but no-one knew about it. Lawyers did not know about it. I said to the lawyers, ‘Are you aware that when contracts come in you’re going to be asking your clients whether they have filled out a sustainability declaration? Are you going to tell the 81- year-old to fill out the form—and I wear contacts and I cannot even read the form—and ask them whether they are aware that it is an offence under the Building Act to provide misleading or false information?’ This is a legal document. I am happy to support the general principles in the bill, but a mandatory sustainability declaration is an unnecessary piece of green tape—again, instigated by an incompetent, out-of-touch and tiring government. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (8.20 pm): I rise to participate in the debate on the Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. I note that there are almost 76 pages of new rules and regulations contained in this bill. A significant part of those new rules and regulations deals with new requirements for buildings in both public and private housing. Every week I receive people in my office in Nambour seeking help for accommodation. The most recent call was from a family who had been living in a tent and fortunately were able to get into a new house. We have a great need on the Sunshine Coast for more public housing. I want to put on the record my appreciation of the support from the current minister and the previous minister for continuing to purchase land and building more public housing in the electorate of Nicklin on the Sunshine Coast. I thank the minister and the government for listening to my concerns. When I travel around my electorate and visit public housing and private housing, I note a very clear distinction in the quality of building work. I put on the record that public housing is much better than much of the private housing accommodation that is provided. I say to the detractors of the government’s proposal to try to extend more public housing that public housing design and standards are very good. I have real reservations with this bill. The bill was introduced on 29 October. Today is 12 November. It is being rushed through this parliament. We are the only parliament in Australia that has one house. We do not have an upper house. Other parliaments are able to get their legislative agenda passed without needing to rush legislation through in such a short period of time. I know that other members of this parliament believe we need an upper house to have better legislative review. I say quite clearly that I do not support that. I believe that Queenslanders do not want to see more politicians in parliament. They want to see existing politicians delivering and providing a service. I believe that a better way to improve the scrutiny of legislation is to improve our committee system. There is no need for legislation like this to be rushed through parliament without the opportunity for better scrutiny of the legislation. I hope that the government will be able to significantly strengthen our committee system to give better opportunities for Queenslanders to be involved in consultation. The previous speaker, the member for Kawana, shared with us his views about the level of consultation. I note in the explanatory notes that the minister has shared the government’s view on the issue of consultation. The reality is that there are 76 pages of new rules and regulations that all Queenslanders will have to comply with. I can recall some time when the previous minister stood in this parliament and said, ‘Every time a bill comes into this House I am going to make sure there is an equal amount of legislation being removed from my parliamentary responsibility.’ Tonight we have seen 76 pages of new rules and regulations. My challenge to the minister and the government is: where are the 76 pages of rules and regulations from another piece of legislation that are being removed to remove the red tape that is 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3419 choking our government and choking private enterprise in Queensland? We need to look genuinely at the issue of not simply introducing more laws. If we are going to introduce more laws, let us equally demonstrate that we are able to remove existing laws, be they acts or be they rules and regulations. I believe that is a reasonable request. The member for Kawana raised issues about the ramifications of this. I certainly share his concerns and other members’ concerns. I also want to put on the record that I believe there are some good aspects contained in this bill, but I believe we need to work better than the way this bill has been handled. I believe we need to better engage with Queenslanders, and I believe we need to genuinely grasp the opportunity, as the Premier has challenged us, to look at new ways of changing the method of passing legislation in the Queensland parliament. I believe we can do it, and I believe Queenslanders will travel with us to improve our committee system. I look forward to the matter proceeding to the consideration in detail stage. Ms SIMPSON (Maroochydore—LNP) (8.24 pm): If ever there has been an attack on housing affordability, it is this, which is yet another layer of red tape. This has to be the bureaucratic equivalent of painting rocks. It will have a growth industry as far as some jobs are concerned, but they will not be truly productive jobs and they will not be jobs that will aid and abet the enhancement of our environment. This sustainability declaration which has been mandated by the government has not been thought through. In fact, it will add quite an additional layer of cost to people selling property—for people in the course of one of the most important actions they may ever take with their investments, which is their property—when they find that this is a mandatory sustainability declaration and they read it. As my colleagues have outlined, what is in the sustainability declaration in itself is unsustainable regulation. Unsustainable regulations are like weeds that are choking and creating a greater burden of cost upon ordinary Queenslanders. I believe that the average Queenslander does want to move towards a more sustainable outcome. They want to find reasonable ways to save costs and energy in their homes, but they do not like being dictated to by government. They like being dictated to even less by rules which are just stupid. This is just stupid. This sustainability form is mandatory, and people will face being fined if they do not fill it out under the proposed act. But it does not require them to make any upgrade to their house. On the one hand, it is supposed to be an educational tool with a penalty if they do not fill it out correctly. On the other hand, it does not mean they will have to upgrade something in their house. I am not advocating that there be some mandatory upgrade to their house. There are better ways to provide an educational tool than to insert this as a mandatory provision at the point of sale. The danger of putting it in as a mandatory declaration at the point of sale is that it will have an impact within the legal contractual system. Sure as eggs, there will be a lawyer who will come along—as some well-learned lawyers have said—who will be able to use this and create an additional burden of cost on people when they realise what the true implications are. Where is the environment in this? The environment is not served. In fact, all that will result is a greater cost burden, costs for the legal process and confusion within the property market. Why does this government feel that a bureaucratic form will somehow enhance the environment? To the average person on the street, this form will be totally unclear. This sustainability declaration requires people to declare whether there are handrails in bathrooms. I think the average buyer can walk into a house and sort out for themselves whether a house has handrails. If they are really concerned about the width of doors, they can take account of that for themselves. There are already building standards in regard to houses, yet we have here another piece of legislation which does not tie back to a practical outcome. I urge the minister to reconsider this part of the legislation. Sustainability is not about more red tape. Sustainability, with education, is not something that you mandate with a declarative form such as this. To achieve sustainability, people need to be brought along with you on the journey. I believe that people are willing to do that, but simply creating another industry of people who will have to assess these forms for you because otherwise people will be liable if they fill them out wrongly is not the best way for people to spend their money. This has the potential to add hundreds of dollars to the cost of the sale of an average home, as people look at this and realise that, if they do not fill it out correctly, they could face legal implications. I understand from the briefings the department has provided to my colleagues and from the debate that has taken place that there has been a move by the government to try to downplay the significance of the mandatory element. I have heard Labor members opposite say, ‘Just don’t tick the box.’ If this is an educational tool, do not make it something that is tied to a penalty under the Building Act. There are ways to go out to the public without providing a legal noose around people’s necks for an outcome which does not provide the benefit that those opposite claim. There are other provisions in the bill which we do support. One is the provision to make the situation with regard to noise in main road corridors clearer in the planning laws and recognition that if people develop beside these corridors there have to be appropriate development controls around those developments such as noise amelioration. There are already some provisions for this in the law but I understand the provisions in this bill will make that clearer. 3420 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wendt): Order! Under the provisions of the resolution agreed to by the House and the time limit for the second reading having expired, the question is that the bill be now read a second time. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5— Mr GIBSON (8.30 pm): I move the following amendment— 1 Clause 5 (Amendment of s 3 (Simplified outline of main provisions of Act)) Page 11, lines 19 to 23— omit, insert— ‘(8) Chapter 8A regulates the effect of particular instruments in relation to stated matters for class 1a, 2 or 10a buildings.’. I table the explanatory notes to the amendments. Tabled paper: Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, explanatory notes for Mr Gibson’s amendments [1352]. This amendment to clause 5 is consequential on the amendments that I will be moving to clause 29 and further throughout the bill. They are targeted at removing the sustainability declaration from this bill. I will speak more to this when we get to clause 29. Mr HINCHLIFFE: I note the preamble that the shadow minister has given to this particular amendment and that he flags that it is around the issue of the mandatory sustainability declaration. I wish to point out to him and the House that there is a very strong foundation of community support for this measure proposed by the government. There was extensive community consultation on the improving sustainable housing in Queensland discussion paper. In fact, that consultation started on 15 June 2008 and went on for some time. The feedback showed overwhelming community support for the policy changes in this regard. For example, a mandatory sustainability declaration received 70 per cent support during that consultation process. That is very strong feedback from the community. A decision confirming that there would be a sustainability declaration came out on 14 December 2008, some time before the election. I think that was a matter of concern for a number of members opposite. Mr GIBSON: I note the minister’s comments that there is broad community support for this. I would like to bring to the minister’s attention comments from the Queensland Law Society, which does not support this proposal. It says with regard to a sustainability declaration— Our concern is that such a disclosure requirement in isolation of more general vendor disclosure of information may only further complicate the sale of real property. We are especially concerned about the validity of sale contracts, entered into when a declaration has not been dutifully completed or if the declaration is misleading and deceptive. It would be undesirable for any additional uncertainty to be introduced into the formation of real property contracts in this state. Whilst the minister says that there was overwhelming support, I wonder whether that overwhelming support was for the form that has been circulated or whether it was for the concept of a sustainability declaration without seeing the form that this government is proposing. Mr HINCHLIFFE: Let me be clear about this. I note the comments that have been raised by the honourable gentleman about the views of the Law Society. Those inputs have been taken into account in the development of this legislation. That is why the bill specifically excludes the termination of contracts based on any inaccuracies in a person’s declaration. We do that in amendments to the Building Act at section 246J and to PAMDA at section 373H. There will be further amendments to further clarify that and to reassure the honourable gentleman. Division: Question put—That the member for Gympie’s amendment be agreed to. AYES, 35—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cripps, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Rickuss, Robinson, Seeney, Simpson, Sorensen, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Horan, Messenger NOES, 46—Attwood, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Cunningham, Dick, Farmer, Finn, Foley, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Johnstone, Jones, Kiernan, Kilburn, Lawlor, Male, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Roberts, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Darling Resolved in the negative. Non-government amendment (Mr Gibson) negatived. Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Clauses 6 to 28, as read, agreed to. 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3421

Clause 29— Mr GIBSON (8.42 pm): I move the following amendments— 2 Clause 29 (Insertion of new chs 8A and 8B) Page 23, lines 16 and 17, ‘Sustainability declarations and provisions’— omit, insert— ‘Provisions’. 3 Clause 29 (Insertion of new chs 8A and 8B) Page 23, lines 19 to 25, page 24, lines 1 to 31, page 25, lines 1 to 31, page 26, lines 1 to 32, page 27, lines 1 to 28, page 28, lines 1 to 29, page 29, lines 1 to 30 and page 30, lines 1 to 21— omit. 4 Clause 29 (Insertion of new chs 8A and 8B) Page 30, line 22, ‘Division’— omit, insert— ‘Part’. 5 Clause 29 (Insertion of new chs 8A and 8B) Page 30, line 23, ‘pt 2’— omit, insert— ‘ch 8A’. 6 Clause 29 (Insertion of new chs 8A and 8B) Page 30, line 24, ‘part’— omit, insert— ‘chapter’. 7 Clause 29 (Insertion of new chs 8A and 8B) Page 31, line 1, ‘pt 2’— omit, insert— ‘ch 8A’. 8 Clause 29 (Insertion of new chs 8A and 8B) Page 31, line 2, ‘part’— omit, insert— ‘chapter’. 9 Clause 29 (Insertion of new chs 8A and 8B) Page 32, line 25, ‘pt 2’— omit, insert— ‘ch 8A’. 10 Clause 29 (Insertion of new chs 8A and 8B) Page 32, line 26, ‘part’— omit, insert— ‘chapter’. 11 Clause 29 (Insertion of new chs 8A and 8B) Page 32, line 31, ‘part’— omit, insert— ‘chapter’. 12 Clause 29 (Insertion of new chs 8A and 8B) Page 33, line 1, ‘part’— omit, insert— ‘chapter’. 13 Clause 29 (Insertion of new chs 8A and 8B) Page 33, line 15, ‘Division’— omit, insert— ‘Part’. 3422 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009

14 Clause 29 (Insertion of new chs 8A and 8B) Page 39, line 6, ‘Division’— omit, insert— ‘Part’. 15 Clause 29 (Insertion of new chs 8A and 8B) Page 39, line 7, ‘pt 2’— omit, insert— ‘ch 8A’. 16 Clause 29 (Insertion of new chs 8A and 8B) Page 39, line 8, ‘part’— omit, insert— ‘chapter’. 17 Clause 29 (Insertion of new chs 8A and 8B) Page 39, line 15, ‘part’— omit, insert— ‘chapter’. 18 Clause 29 (Insertion of new chs 8A and 8B) Page 39, line 23, ‘part’— omit, insert— ‘chapter’. These amendments to clause 29 address the very concerns that we have heard articulated tonight in this chamber. Whenever there is a mandatory component to any aspect of regulation, we are in a small way removing the rights and freedoms that we as Queenslanders enjoy within this state. As those on our side who have addressed those concerns have said, this mandatory sustainability declaration will do nothing more than add a layer of red tape. It achieves nothing more than can be achieved in discussions between the buyer and the seller. As has been pointed out quite eloquently, we do not need a mandatory sustainability declaration to see whether or not there is a pool at the house. We do not need it to see whether the roof colour is dark or light. We do not need it to see whether or not there is a handrail in the bathroom. All of these features that are in homes can be seen at the time of a property inspection. We know that when Queenslanders see a property that they like on the internet or in the paper they turn up to the open house. They will go through the house and talk with the agents and will be made aware of all of this information without the need for a mandatory sustainability declaration. So the question then is this: why do we need to have it? The answer apparently from this government is that it wants to educate people. We do not educate people by having a mandatory form for them to fill out. Mr Nicholls: Perhaps we could do it in schools! Mr GIBSON: Perhaps we could do it in schools. Perhaps we could do it in the communities. Instead of this government wasting taxpayers’ dollars sending out myths and facts forms to educate us about its asset sell-off and perhaps instead of it sending out propaganda that we have seen in my electorate over the Traveston Crossing Dam, telling us time and time again what a great project it was and how environmentally fantastic it was, perhaps it could educate the people of Queensland and help them to understand. How did we achieve the great savings that came about in terms of changes to water usage? In large part it was due to the success of the education program. This government finds itself trying to educate people with font that ranges from six to 8.5 in English only, so it does not bother to educate those for whom English is their second language. We find ourselves in a position here where we are dealing with sensible points that, as has been pointed out, are not even covered in the sustainability declaration. Those elements that are missing from the form do not need to be in a mandatory form. Rather, they need to be discussed to educate people and give them an opportunity to be brought along on the journey. What we see time and time again from Labor governments is this paternalistic approach—the nanny state: ‘We want to tell you what is best because we know.’ An opposition member: Very arrogant! Mr GIBSON: It is incredibly arrogant, but it is in Labor’s DNA to be that arrogant. Mr Nicholls: It was like that with Traveston. 12 Nov 2009 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3423

Mr GIBSON: Indeed, it was. It was like that with Traveston: ‘We know best, and that’s why we’re going about this.’ That is why Peter Beattie in the very early days said, ‘This dam is being built, feasible or not.’ That is a statement of a man who is listening to reason! That is a statement of a man who wants to educate! What did we find from the next Premier? A continuation of that. Why? Because Labor is not interested in educating; Labor wants to remove people’s freedoms in this state. Labor wants to remove people’s opportunities in this state. Labor has contempt for Queenslanders and it wants to wrap them up in another layer of bureaucracy. The LNP is moving these amendments to show strongly that it opposes the loss of these rights and that it opposes this paternalistic nanny state approach. We believe that we can achieve the outcomes—the desired outcomes—without having to force people. What other rights will we be losing in this state as this government takes its ‘we know best’ approach? I note that proposed section 264K acknowledges that someone can be paid to complete the declaration. We have heard from those opposite that you do not need to pay anybody because it is such a simple form! Mr Dickson: And we believe them. They always tell the truth! Mr GIBSON: Absolutely. The question is: who would be paying and what qualifications— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! If the member for Buderim wishes to interject, he should at least return to his seat. Mr GIBSON: We need to know whether they will be required to have any qualifications. We need to know who these people will be. There are also questions about absentee sellers. We need to know what will happen with regard to those people. The example I gave was of a serviceman who wishes to sell his property while serving in Afghanistan. How will he be required to fill out this form? Mr Nicholls interjected. Mr GIBSON: They do not. We know that Labor governments do not support those who serve in our armed forces. We have seen that. I will be interested to see how this goes. This week there were questions asked in the media about why we could not sit another week and have respect for Remembrance Day. Mr Wettenhall: How could you bring something like that into the debate? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Barron River. Mr GIBSON: Thank you for you protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I said, there has been much discussion in the community this week as to why this parliament needed to sit on Remembrance Day and why we could not have sat in the first week of December to ensure that respect. But let me come back to these concerns. This bill imposes substantial penalties. I note that a failure to have a sustainability declaration attracts a penalty of $2,000. So if people do not have the declaration, they will face that penalty. So what do people do? An opposition member: You can’t sell your house, either. Mr GIBSON: People cannot sell their house, either. So we will find that a person will say, ‘I’ll have to sign the bottom of the form and just hand it in.’ Where is the educational value in that? I would say to the minister that there is none. We see in this bill a penalty of $2,000 for failure to amend or replace a sustainability declaration and a penalty of $2,000 for advertising the sale of a building without including the required information. This bill is not about education, unless we believe in Labor’s approach of educating people through fines and regulations, which is not the approach that we wish to take. I look forward to the minister’s responses to these questions. I look forward to the support for these amendments from those opposite, if they are genuine about sustainability and housing affordability. If they are not, there is one thing they can do and that is oppose these amendments. But if they are, they should support them. Mr HINCHLIFFE: I table my amendments and explanatory notes and the erratum to the explanatory notes. Tabled paper: Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009, Mr Hinchliffe’s amendments [1353]. Tabled paper: Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009, explanatory notes for Mr Hinchliffe’s amendments [1354]. Tabled paper: Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009, erratum to explanatory notes [1355]. I appreciate the extensive way in which the member for Gympie and his opposition colleagues canvassed the issue of the sustainability declaration in the debate this afternoon and this evening. It fails me to appreciate how challenging the members opposite have found the nature of this declaration. It is, in fact, a very simple and user-friendly declaration that is designed to promote and add value to the sustainable features of a home. The sustainability declaration is based on the assumption of energy use in a standard home and is designed to highlight potential energy savings in each feature. 3424 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 12 Nov 2009

During the second reading debate some members went through the sustainability declaration and identified the dollars and the percentages and simply tallied them. You cannot do that, as I think the member for Gympie and the member for Moggill suggested. That would be very flawed mathematics. In addition, many of the members opposite—and we saw the member for Gympie do it again just now— have been scaremongering that the sustainability declaration is some sort of onerous task that will cause a whole lot of problems and heartache. As the member for Capalaba illustrated very well during his contribution to the second reading debate, people do not need to pay—and I heard of bids ranging between $250 and $1,000 tonight—to have someone identify whether or not they have air conditioning, a swimming pool, ceiling fans, a light coloured roof or a rainwater tank. People do not need to pay someone to do that. They simply follow the form, fill it out and complete it. People do not need a tradesperson or an expert to tell them that they have a gas cooktop or a spa or a solar hot-water system. The member for Gympie seems to have an obsession about the number of questions in the sustainability declaration. He also has an obsession about the font size. All of the members opposite filled out the application for membership of the LNP. I can tell members that that application had some 60 questions and a font size of the order of six point. They could fill out that form, but they cannot fill out this one. It is quite extraordinary. It is a step-by-step, user-friendly— Honourable members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr HINCHLIFFE: The declaration will come with a step-by-step, user-friendly guide full of practical examples. These examples— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, under the provisions of the resolution agreed to by the House, the time limit for the consideration in detail of the bill has expired. The question is that clauses 29 to 82, the schedule and the minister’s amendments be agreed to. Amendments as circulated— 1 Clause 29 (Insertion of new chs 8A and 8B) Page 27, line 15, ‘the building is sold’— omit, insert— ‘a contract for the sale of the building settles’. 2 Clause 73 (Insertion of new ch 11, pt 5) Page 68, line 15, ‘the dwelling is sold’— omit, insert— ‘a contract for the sale of the dwelling settles’. 3 Clause 73 (Insertion of new ch 11, pt 5) Page 71, line 3, after ‘relevant contract’— insert— ‘, or a contract formed on a sale by auction,’. Division: Question put—That clauses 29 to 82, the schedule and the minister’s amendments be agreed to. AYES, 45—Attwood, 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, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Kiernan NOES, 36—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cripps, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Rickuss, Robinson, Seeney, Simpson, Sorensen, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Horan, Messenger Resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 29 to 82 and schedule, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading Hon. SJ HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) (9.02 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. 12 Nov 2009 Adjournment 3425

Long Title Hon. SJ HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) (9.02 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.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (9.02 pm): I move— That the House, at its rising, do adjourn until 9.30 am Tuesday, 24 November 2009. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (9.02 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn.

Beaudesert Electorate, Bat Colonies Mr McLINDON (Beaudesert—LNP) (9.03 pm): I would like to raise an extremely important issue in the Beaudesert region. This government, as it did in relation to the rabbit-proof fence and centralisation, brings policy after policy into this House with no regard for rural and regional Queensland. I would like to highlight a serious issue that involves bats that are in plague proportions at Witheren right next door to Canungra, in Kooralbyn and also in the Gleneagle area. Only four weeks ago a horse at the age of 5½ years died of an unknown cause. It was an extremely healthy horse. It has certainly sparked fears in the community of the possibility of the Hendra virus. Only three months ago an extremely healthy horse at the age of 17½ years died of unnatural causes. When I went out to meet the residents of Canungra, some 25 residents turned up at 11.30 on a Sunday morning. When I got talking to them they alerted me to the fact that there was a damage mitigation permit that one could apply for. I thought this is exactly what the Scenic Rim Regional Council needs. We have heard the rhetoric from the government about how bats are more important than humans time and time again. It was only then that I discovered, after doing a search on the computer, that one of these damage mitigation permits was actually granted to none other than the Mackay Regional Council. Of course, the member for Mackay is the Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Rural and Regional Queensland. I think councils right across Queensland need the discretion given by a damage mitigation permit to be able to relocate and move bats on. We have had two healthy horses die in the last three months. We need to be able to relocate these bats for the safety of residents and their children. Many residents have spent hundreds and thousands of dollars getting their own water tanks, yet they cannot drink the very water that they collect in their tanks because of the excretion from the bats. The bats have taken over these communities. I urge the minister to seriously consider that every council across Queensland is given this discretion. This government has to get serious and put the priorities of Queenslanders and human beings before bats. We have had two horses die in Canungra in the same region in less than three months. It is an extremely serious issue. The government needs to get serious about this. Whether it be cats, dogs or anything in plague proportion, something has to be done. Evidently the government has turned a blind eye except for in the minister’s electorate. Mr Hopper: The minister has the permit in Mackay. Mr McLINDON: Exactly. If you are in Mackay you can get a permit, but if you are in the Beaudesert region you get the flick. It is time that this government, rather than turning a blind eye to this, got serious before we see an epidemic. Mr MULHERIN: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. It is not in my electorate. Mr McLINDON: I cannot understand why this government sits on its hands and gives priority to bats over humans. I would like the government to take this seriously. 3426 Adjournment 12 Nov 2009

Silver Memories Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (9.06 pm): Silver Memories is a unique 24-hour-a-day radio service that has been developed by 4MBS Classic FM, a Brisbane community radio station that is based in and broadcasts from the Greenslopes electorate. Silver Memories was created to specifically address the needs of older Australians who are often socially and emotionally isolated, including those living in residential aged-care facilities. On 4 November I had the pleasure of visiting the 4MBS studio at Coorparoo in my electorate to attend the official broadcast launch of the Silver Memories service. Silver Memories fills a gap by playing music that is not available on any other radio station. The programs have strong emphasis on music of the past, from the 1920s through to the 1950s—the golden age of Hollywood movies and musicals and musical theatre. Silver Memories also broadcasts big band, swing and other popular music of that era. The service uniquely features singalong sessions, birthday calls, old radio serials, comedy spots, special highlights and requests, making Silver Memories truly interactive with the local community. Silver Memories also regularly broadcasts information on government services, particularly for the elderly. The 4MBS Silver Memories service can be received only by special radio units designed to pick up the appropriate subcarrier frequency or, alternatively, listeners can access the service via the internet online. Researchers from the University of Queensland recently formally evaluated the impact of Silver Memories upon listeners’ quality of life and wellbeing. There were 114 participants who completed the evaluation in total. Participants included 68 community-dwelling older adults and 46 living in residential aged care from 14 separate facilities. Participants were asked to listen to Silver Memories for at least one hour a day over a period of three months and to keep a daily listening diary. Participants also answered questions regarding the quality of their life both before and after the trial. The average age of participants in the trial was 80 years and participants had an average of 2.6 chronic health conditions, with 14 participants bed or wheelchair bound. I am pleased to report that the results of the evaluation were very positive indeed. One hundred per cent of carers and care staff involved in the trial stated that they would recommend the radio service to others. It was found that Silver Memories significantly improved the quality of life of those who participated and an improvement in depression was also observed amongst listeners. Even more encouraging was the finding that Silver Memories had a calming effect on some patients with dementia. I personally donated six radios to the Archbishop Duhig Nursing Home at Holland Park during the 2009 state election. I am very pleased to advise that I have been recently advised that a resident suffering from dementia who had not been communicating began to do so after listening to the Silver Memories service. Silver Memories will have significant benefits for many older Australians and I commend 4MBS Classic FM, in particular its indefatigable general manager, Gary Thorpe, for providing such a valuable and sometimes life-changing service to those living in the electorate of Greenslopes and beyond. 4MBS Classic FM operates mainly due to the generosity of volunteer staff, and I thank them for providing the Silver Memories service and helping older Australians to cope with serious issues such as loneliness, depression and chronic illness. I am very proud that this radio station operates from the Greenslopes electorate and I intend to continue to offer 4MBS my support in its future endeavours.

Coral Coast Homes Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—LNP) (9.09 pm): I table a letter that I have recently received from the CMC.

Tabled paper: Letter, dated 6 November 2009, from Helen Couper, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Misconduct, Crime and Misconduct Commission, to Mr Rob Messenger MP, in relation to a complaint about the Building Services Authority and Coral Coast Homes [1356]. A CMC investigation into the management of the Building Services Authority and its regulation of the Queensland building industry with regard to Coral Coast Homes was launched after a number of my constituents became victims of a very dishonest Burnett builder, John Biles. According to the CMC, an independent investigation commissioned by the BSA found with regard to the BSA’s internal systemic issues: there is a lack of policy and procedure to guide decision-making process under relevant acts and regulations; deficient and/or inconsistent record-keeping practices; the retention of staff lacking financial qualifications to carry out compliance investigations; the lack of structured staff training programs; the absence of an internal file review system ensuring quality control of audit process and to ensure timely acting of matters; and a lack of integration of data held by the BSA in relation to individual licence holders. 12 Nov 2009 Adjournment 3427

The CMC letter also says that the investigator appointed by the BSA, Mr King of Corporate Success Group, also identified possible deficiencies in the financial requirement for licensing—FRL— framework with respect to the issue of chronic nonpayment of debts. The letter then goes on to say that it takes the view, and has made the recommendation to the BSA, that it is appropriate to institute a review of its corporate governance framework with the object being a rejuvenated, accountable and transparent system with which to move forward. I am very disappointed that the CMC referred the matter back to the BSA for self-investigation and other aspects of this letter. However, these comments are an absolutely damning indictment on the political leadership and the management of this government of the BSA. It appears from the CMC letter that not one of my constituents who made a complaint about the BSA was interviewed by Mr King. Surely if you were to conduct a rigorous independent investigation focused on uncovering the truth, you would not only interview the BSA officers but also interview the people who made the complaints. Secondly, this is a very serious issue. The BSA’s failure to protect my constituents from Coral Coast Homes has driven people to the point of almost taking their own lives because they have lost hope of recovering their life savings. It has driven people to suffer nervous breakdowns—physical breakdowns. It has severely tested family relationships. This deserved the attention of the CMC. The CMC investigators should have been involved in the interview of the seven BSA staff members. There is a big difference in being questioned by a private subcontracted investigator whom you are paying to do the job and the CMC. Pine Rivers United Sports Club Ms MALE (Pine Rivers—ALP) (9.12 pm): On Sunday it was my great pleasure to attend and assist in officially opening the new netball courts at the Pine Rivers United Sports Club, both as the member for Pine Rivers and representing the Minister for Sport, the Hon. Phil Reeves. The Bligh Labor government was delighted to provide just over $70,000 to the Pine Rivers United Sports Club to complete this important project in support of netball and futsal. The upgrade to the two courts will improve the club’s ability to deliver a range of sporting activities and competitions for the local community. I appreciated the opportunity to see the pictures of the two run-down bitumen courts, as they have been for the past six years, and to compare them with the bright blue rebound-ace covered courts, which are a dream to run on and look fabulous. The Moreton Bay Regional Council provided over $70,000 in site preparation, drainage and retaining walls and in the final landscaping. The federal government also kicked in with $30,000. Our thanks go to Fiona McNamara, the Labor candidate for Dickson, for her ongoing work in obtaining this funding and her support for local clubs in the area. A government member: Hear, hear! Ms MALE: She is a great person, a great local. The Pine Rivers United Sports Club has long held a vision for the upgrade of the netball courts and has worked hard to get the funding but, importantly, put in a large amount of its own fundraising dollars to complete the courts. This project was funded through the Minor Facilities Program and is an excellent example of the state, federal and local governments and sporting organisations working together to provide much needed infrastructure to meet community participation needs. As a government, we are keen to encourage more Queenslanders of all ages to get involved in sport and recreation. That is why we have provided more than $4 million in funding in support of a variety of sport and recreation opportunities in the Pine Rivers area since 1998. This includes funding for participation initiatives, education and training, minor and major capital works and even some disaster assistance, as well as funding to help 89 young athletes attend state and national sporting championships. The government has previously provided funding to construct a grandstand at the club for soccer and for the installation of field irrigation, lighting and shade structures. It was lovely to have Linda Lavarch at the opening as she has been a long-term supporter of Pine Rivers United Sports Club and was instrumental in assisting the club to receive funding. I congratulate the outgoing secretary, Flora Bradley, for her strong support and organisational skills in continually moving the club forward. My congratulations also go to the president, the executive and all of the volunteers and supporters who have made the club the great venue it is today. The Queensland government’s support for this project is part of its strong commitment to providing sport and recreation opportunities for all Queenslanders, from the grassroots level up to the elite level. We all know that playing sport and getting active is one of the best ways to improve our quality of life, both physically and socially. If people have good access to appropriate facilities in their local communities, it makes it easier for them to get involved in sport and recreation, which will help us meet our Toward Q2: Tomorrow’s Queensland aim of making Queenslanders Australia’s healthiest people by reducing obesity by one-third by 2020. We can help achieve this goal by continuing to be a leader in sport and recreation in Queensland, and this is what the Bligh Labor government will do. 3428 Adjournment 12 Nov 2009

Redlands Electorate Mr DOWLING (Redlands—LNP) (9.15 pm): What a month! Tonight I rise to share with honourable members some of the events in my community and put on the record my congratulations, best wishes, thanks and gratitude for their respective contributions to our community. Many schools and sporting clubs obviously are into the awards season at the moment, and I have attended a number of the ceremonies. I acknowledge the Redland Bombers AFL Club and the Victoria Point Sharks Sporting Club. They have the Dowling Medal Count—it is no relation to me. It is just coincidental that years ago a Dowling family member settled in the area. An honourable member interjected. Mr DOWLING: It is a great name. Carmel College held its awards night. Victoria Point State High School had both its awards night and its sports achievement night. All were well attended. It is a really positive thing for the future of our country to see these young people coming up to receive their respective awards. I was also able to attend numerous community cultural activities such as the Sheldon College Arts Academy, which is a showcase like no other for talented young people. The Calvary Christian College Showcase also displayed an outstanding calibre of talent. I also attended the Sheldon College Celebration of Excellence; the Trefoil Guild official opening, which was also attended by the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. JP Langbroek; Redlands on Stage, which was hosted by Redland City mayor, Councillor Melba Hobson, showcasing local talent; and So You Think You Can Perform—the Redland Rhapsody Chorus. Again, that is run by locals to encourage local talent. The Coochiemudlo Island Art Group held its art show displaying a fantastic calibre of work. I also attended the Tingira Boat Club Family Fun Day. I also congratulate the Uniting Church on achieving 100 years of worship on the same site in Cleveland. I also wish David Cornthwaite a safe journey. He is a Welsh environmental adventurer. He is actually paddling from the source of the Murray River down to the sea. It is a journey of some 2,400 kilometres. I actually joined him for the first 200 kilometres from Bringenbrong down to the wall of the Hume Weir, which is just above Albury for the benefit of those members who are aware of that location. Tonight he is actually in Swan Hill. As I say, I wish him all the best for a safe journey. He currently has paddled 1,100 kilometres. He has a further 1,410 kilometres to go. If members do a Google search of ‘the great big paddle’, they will find the website and be able to track his journey all the way through. He is an environmentalist. Paddling with him down the Murray, we went through a transition from a life filled river system with platypus, echidna and kangaroos all around to a dam which I imagine is like what Traveston would have been—a lifeless dam, a big body of water with no life whatsoever in comparison to the flowing river. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms O’Neill): Order! Before I call the member for Sandgate, I take advantage of the fact that I am in the chair and acknowledge my nephew Robbie and his wife, Bernie, in the gallery tonight. Curlew Park, Sandgate Ms DARLING (Sandgate—ALP) (9.18 pm): The users of Curlew Park, Sandgate, can look forward to improved safety as they travel to the park to play sport, have a picnic, use the off-leash area or ride their bicycles along the cycleways. Boom gates are currently being installed at Curlew Street where the road crosses the railway line between the Sandgate and Shorncliffe stations. I have been advocating for safety improvements at Curlew Street since I was first elected in 2006, and I was petitioned by parents in 2007 who urged me to have boom gates installed at the crossing. Hundreds of students from the local schools use these sports fields every week, and there had been reports of children on bikes rushing across the lines after the flashing lights had begun. Last year my advocating paid off, when the then transport minister, John Mickel, approved installation of automated pedestrian safety gates, signage and audible warnings. While I was satisfied with this as an interim measure, I continued to push for boom gates at the crossing. As far as I am aware, this is the only crossing within the Brisbane City Council area that does not have boom gates, and drivers are often caught off guard because they expect to see the dropping gates. There have been five reported near misses at the crossing this year alone. I am thrilled to inform the House that the transport minister, Rachel Nolan, has approved the boom gates, with work due for completion by the end of November. The pedestrian crossing will also be upgraded with a rubber panelling system to be installed to minimise the gap between the track and the crossing surface. Approximately $43 million in state funding is currently allocated to open level crossing protection to access and upgrade sites across the state. I would like to thank Wendy Horrocks for raising awareness amongst parents at Shorncliffe State School and St Patrick’s College for organising the petition for these safety improvements. Thanks also to the transport ministers who listened to my pleas on behalf of the Sandgate community, and thanks to the council for their collaboration on the boom 12 Nov 2009 Adjournment 3429 gates. I know the Curlew Park Sports Association has great plans to improve the sports grounds, and I know this will go a long way to keeping the home and visiting teams safe as well as the many other school students and local residents who use the fields. But there is still one level crossing of concern to my local community, albeit one with boom gates. I thank the Brisbane City Council for finally submitting its business case and road design for a flyover at the Telegraph Road level crossing. I have never stopped fighting for safety improvements at Telegraph Road, and I will continue to urge my government to conduct a speedy assessment of the council’s flyover plan so that we can keep moving towards a solution at this crossing. Darling Downs-Moreton Rabbit Board Mr HOPPER (Condamine—LNP) (9.21 pm): I would like to speak about the Darling Downs- Moreton Rabbit Board. This rabbit board controls the fence, and that fence has been under the board’s control for 116 years. This fence has survived two world wars and the Great Depression. Government members interjected. Mr HOPPER: You can squawk as much as you like over there, because this government is going to destroy what this fence has stood up for in the last 116 years. It is as simple as that. Members opposite do not care. The Darling Downs-Moreton Rabbit Board consists of six members: two from the Darling Downs division, one from the Moreton division, two government appointees and one government representative. The board meets every seven to eight weeks and members conduct fence inspections twice a year. Ms Jones: Ha, ha! Mr HOPPER: The minister for the environment is having a great laugh. She should hang her head in shame, because she should know exactly what devastation rabbits do in Queensland—of all people, she should know, as well as the two ministers sitting beside her. The Darling Downs-Moreton Rabbit Board looks after eight local government authorities and protects them from incursions by rabbits. It is the role of the board to ensure they fulfil all of their responsibilities as stated in the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 and the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Regulation 2003. Major funding for operations is derived from precepts levied by the department of primary industries and fisheries on the eight local government authorities and cities that make up the board’s operational area. The board is responsible for the maintenance and reconstruction of 555 kilometres of rabbit-proof fence and providing assistance to landholders in the board’s operation area—which is approximately 28,000 kilometres—to maintain their land free of rabbits. The Queensland state Labor government has proposed to amalgamate the wild dog barrier fence, the Darling Downs-Moreton Rabbit Board rabbit- proof fence and the local government check fences into a single organisation. The Darling Downs- Moreton Rabbit Board strongly opposes these proposed changes. The board believes firmly that the proposed changes will definitely be more costly, less effective and less efficient and that the extra funding would be sought from local government authorities and ratepayers. Recent research has shown that the rabbit-proof fence is the only effective barrier against rabbit incursions into the highly productive agricultural areas of southern Queensland. Any alteration to the effectiveness or efficiency would only lead to the fence’s demise. Extra costs would also be required for compliance and enforcement. There has been a large increase in the rabbit population in many parts of the Darling Downs. The township of Dalby and surrounding areas have had a significant increase in rabbit populations. DPI staff are having to take action to eradicate these populations in local areas. There has been a general increase in population in Australia because the biological controls developed for the management of rabbit populations have developed a resistance. So what we will see is the total breakdown of 116 years of a fence that actually worked, but what have we seen here tonight? Two ministers laughing over there before. They do not get it. (Time expired) Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference, Future Health Care Mrs MILLER (9.24 pm): Last week I attended the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in Perth along with my colleagues. We heard from many eminent professors, doctors and experts in relation to a variety of issues affecting Australians. However, one issue in relation to health really worried me: the fact that the health budget in Australia, whether public or private, is unsustainable. Our learned friends told us that our health system is excellent in world terms. However, each person in Australia has to take personal responsibility for their own health. Four areas were identified as critical in terms of the future for our health care: diabesity, which is diabetes caused by obesity; depression, and we are seeing an increased rate of depression in very young children; dementia, and they are predicting an increased rate of dementia as the population ages; and drugs and medical incidents in relation to the scourge of drugs in our community. Our learned 3430 Adjournment 12 Nov 2009 friends were of the view that there is too much of a silo mentality—that is, the health department does not talk to the education department which in turn does not talk to the police et cetera. They argued that there should be much more coordination across these departments and that this would result in better outcomes for Australians. Many older people in the community have said to me that we should go back to the community based delivery of care that is holistic, that treats the whole person not parts of the person—in other words, a community care program. I was very pleased today to read that the federal health minister, Nicola Roxon, has emphasised the need for major reforms because of the massive rises in the cost of health care. She said that the latest budget estimate figure showed an additional $4.3 billion in health spending over the next four years. In fact, she said just 7c of every health dollar goes towards preventive health measures, with more than 70c going to treating those people with acute health problems, which is often the result of preventive illnesses. Every person in this country must realise that their health is their responsibility and that in future years we just might be facing a situation where a rationing of health services may become a reality. ‘Rationing of health care?’ I thought. I could not believe what I was hearing. Unless we look after ourselves, lose weight or control our weight, seek help with mental illnesses and accept that it is a real medical condition, keep our brains active and acknowledge that we will live longer and that dementia and associated housing issues will need to be addressed, and acknowledge that the scourge of illicit drugs and the associated medical problems are placing unprecedented costs on the health system, then we will be in a perilous situation in terms of our health care as a nation. It is a real possibility that our entire national and state budgets may be spent on nothing else but health—in other words, no money for education, roads, dams or desal plants, or anything else. No-one wants this. So I say to our community, ‘Wake up. Wake up, Australia. Get a grip, and start looking after ourselves, our families and our community.’

Hinchinbrook Electorate, Assaults on Police and Ambulance Officers Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (9.27 pm): I rise to express my serious concern and disgust about two incidents that occurred in my electorate last week. It pains me to report to the House that, in the early hours of Tuesday morning last week, an ambulance officer was assaulted while he responded to a call to treat an elderly patient in Ingham. What I find most bizarre is that the assault was perpetrated by the son of the patient while the ambulance officer was trying to attend to his medical needs. While it is fortunate the ambulance officer was not seriously injured, it is entirely appropriate that the incident was subsequently reported to police. I understand the individual who assaulted the ambulance officer has been charged, and so he should be. The assault of an ambulance officer in the course of doing their duty is cowardly and inexcusable and is not to be tolerated in Queensland. Our ambulance officers increasingly and regrettably find themselves in harm’s way responding to emergency calls. Ambulance officers are certainly amongst those people in the community who deserve special protection. Unfortunately, it has been reported that QAS officers are faced with very difficult situations on an almost weekly basis, including being verbally abused or threatened with violence. Indeed, unions representing ambulance officers have raised the possibility of a future requirement for ambulance officers to be accompanied by security officers when they are deployed to an emergency if there is no improvement in the standard of community regard for ambulance officers. Things are grim if ambulance officers believe they need to be accompanied by security officers on call-outs in order to do their job safely. I am also distressed that last Saturday night a police officer was assaulted on duty at Mission Beach. I am extremely disappointed this assault has occurred. I consider it to be totally unacceptable and a sad reflection of the poor attitude some in the community have towards the police. It is alarming that North Queensland is a hot spot for assaults on police officers, with Cairns and Townsville on the list of the most dangerous places in Queensland for policing. I am disgusted by the total lack of respect some people have for police officers. Police officers fulfil crucial and challenging public service roles for the benefit and safety of the community. Police officers perform their functions in some very demanding and stressful situations. If the law is to be respected, the people we charge with the responsibility of enforcing the law should also be respected. Failure to show that respect should have serious consequences. The current consequences are clearly not a deterrent. The LNP has previously introduced a private member’s bill into this parliament to provide for mandatory sentences for people who assault police and ambulance officers. Unfortunately, the state government voted against that bill. Tonight I call on the state government to rethink its attitude in view of the ongoing violence perpetrated against ambulance officers and police officers in this state which should be condemned in the strongest possible terms by this parliament not only with words but with actions. 12 Nov 2009 Attendance 3431

Social Housing, Comments by Member for Burdekin Mr FINN (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (9.30 pm): Yesterday in this chamber the member for Burdekin alleged that the government was building ‘ghetto style public housing’. In stooping to this language, the member not only resorts to scaremongering but also harnesses the language derived from the holocaust now in common usage as a derogatory term for where minority groups live. Today a common dictionary definition includes a thickly populated slum area inhabited predominantly by members of an ethnic or other minority group, or any mode of living, working et cetera that results from stereotyping or biased treatment. The client base of the government’s social housing program is a varied group of people who need government support to access suitable housing because the private market does not provide for them. This is mainly due to affordability but also where the market does not provide what is needed—for example, access to disability suitable housing. In fact, 42 per cent of people living in social housing are people with a disability and 44 per cent of the client base are seniors. Additionally, there are people with special needs like those who are unable to find work, single-parent families struggling to make ends meet, people with health problems affecting their ability to earn a suitable income, people escaping violent relationships and many people in need of short-term assistance to get through a temporary hard time. One group in my electorate who access social housing are the war widows who settled in Moorooka and are now seniors. These women do not think they are living in slums. They are happy with the housing that is provided and they are very house proud. Social housing proposals are submitted to local councils for advice and feedback. Council suggestions are incorporated into development plans, and developments are designed in accordance with local planning schemes and building codes. Where there may be proposals that substantially differ from local planning schemes, these are subjected to local consultation through an advertised public objections process. The most common variation from council schemes is the number of allocated parking places in unit developments. This comes about for three main reasons. Firstly, the client base for social housing has a lower car ownership rate than the wider community, reflecting their demographic of a lower income base and a higher proportion of people with disabilities and seniors. Secondly, social housing is built in close proximity to public transport options, again reflecting the needs of the cohort. Thirdly, lower demand for parking enables the state to maximise the number of dwellings provided in unit developments, thus ensuring maximum service delivery for the taxpayer dollar. Social housing provides an essential service to Queenslanders in need and is a core responsibility of government. Liberal National Party scaremongering does nothing more than create community division between those who have and those who have not. Question put—That the House do now adjourn. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 9.32 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, Scott, Seeney, Shine, Simpson, Smith, Sorensen, Spence, Springborg, Stevens, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson

GOVERNMENT PRINTER, QUEENSLAND—2009