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, 25 February 2010

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 529 Absence of Member ...... 529 TABLED PAPER ...... 529 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 529 Deaths of Children; Facebook ...... 529 Atkinson, Mr R ...... 530 Film Production ...... 530 Community Cabinets ...... 531 People’s Question Time ...... 531 Dental Health Services, Funding ...... 532 Grants Commission ...... 533 TruckWeek ...... 533 Electrical Safety, Insulation Installation ...... 534 Home Insulation Program ...... 534 Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders ...... 535 Wild Dogs ...... 535 Atkinson, Mr R ...... 536 Domestic Building Contracts; CeBIT 2010, Germany ...... 536 LNG Industry ...... 537 Teaching Scholarships ...... 537 Energy Efficient Design ...... 538 Roads Infrastructure ...... 538 Heritage Register ...... 539 Disability and Aged Care Services, Funding ...... 539 REVIEW OF THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE SYSTEM COMMITTEE ...... 540 Order of Appointment ...... 540 ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE ...... 540 Report ...... 540 Tabled paper: Environment and Resources Committee, Report No. 2—Energy efficiency: Queensland’s first energy resource...... 540 Tabled paper: Environment and Resources Committee, Report No. 2—Energy efficiency: Queensland’s first energy resource, conclusions and recommendations...... 540

J MICKEL N J LAURIE L J OSMOND SPEAKER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER Table of Contents — Thursday, 25 February 2010

NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 540 Disallowance of Statutory Instrument ...... 540 SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 541 School Group Tours ...... 541 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 541 Comments by Premier, Australian Labor Party State Conference ...... 541 Sale of Public Assets ...... 541 Bligh Labor Government ...... 542 Congestion Tax ...... 543 Population Growth ...... 543 Tabled paper: Document, dated November 2009, by Morton Consulting Services Pty Ltd titled ‘Overview of Recent Trends in Residential Lot Supply and Demand in SEQ’...... 544 Sale of Public Assets ...... 544 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 25 February 2010, from PJ Simpson, ETU State Secretary, to Mr Anthony Chisholm, ALP State Secretary, relating to a requisition for a special ALP state conference...... 544 My School Website; Hospitals ...... 545 Infrastructure ...... 545 Grants Commission ...... 546 Home Insulation Program ...... 547 Tabled paper: Extract from Minter Ellison risk register relating to the home insulation scheme...... 547 Schools, Performance ...... 548 State Schools ...... 548 Koala Protection ...... 549 Beef Imports ...... 549 Consumer Protection ...... 550 Water Supply ...... 550 Antihooning Laws ...... 551 CRIMINAL HISTORY SCREENING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL; DISABILITY SERVICES (CRIMINAL HISTORY) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 551 Second Reading (Cognate Debate) ...... 551 Division: Question put—That the Disability Services (Criminal History) Amendment Bill be now read a second time...... 556 Resolved in the negative...... 556 Consideration in Detail ...... 556 Clause 1, as read, agreed to...... 556 Clause 2— ...... 556 Tabled paper: Explanatory notes to Ms Struthers’ amendments to be moved in consideration in detail to the Criminal History Screening Legislation Amendment Bill...... 556 Clause 2, as amended, agreed to...... 556 Clauses 3 to 11, as read, agreed to...... 556 Clause 12, as read, agreed to...... 557 Clauses 13 to 55, as read, agreed to...... 557 Clause 56, as read, agreed to...... 557 Clause 57, as read, agreed to...... 557 Clause 58— ...... 557 Clause 58, as amended, agreed to...... 559 Clauses 59 to 69, as read, agreed to...... 559 Clause 70, as read, agreed to...... 560 Clauses 71 to 102, as read, agreed to...... 560 Clause 103— ...... 560 Clause 103, as amended, agreed to...... 561 Clause 104— ...... 561 Clause 104, as amended, agreed to...... 561 Clause 105— ...... 561 Clause 105, as amended, agreed to...... 562 Clause 106— ...... 562 Clause 106, as amended, agreed to...... 562 Clause 107— ...... 562 Clause 107, as amended, agreed to...... 562 Clauses 108 to 155, as read, agreed to...... 562 Clause 156— ...... 562 Clause 156, as amended, agreed to...... 563 Clauses 157 to 174, as read, agreed to...... 563 Clause 175— ...... 563 Clause 175, as amended, agreed to...... 563 Table of Contents — Thursday, 25 February 2010

Clauses 176 to 181, as read, agreed to...... 563 Clause 182—...... 563 Clause 182, as amended, agreed to...... 563 Clauses 183 to 199, as read, agreed to...... 563 Clause 200—...... 564 Clause 200, as amended, agreed to...... 564 Clauses 201 and 202, as read, agreed to...... 564 Clause 203—...... 564 Clause 203, as amended, agreed to...... 564 Clauses 204 to 213, as read, agreed to...... 564 Clause 214, as read, agreed to...... 566 Clauses 215 to 228, as read, agreed to...... 566 Clause 229, as read, agreed to...... 566 Clauses 230 to 248, as read, agreed to...... 566 Schedules 1 to 3, as read, agreed to...... 566 Third Reading ...... 566 Long Title ...... 566 PRIVILEGE ...... 567 Alleged Deliberate Misleading of the House by a Minister ...... 567 Tabled paper: Copies of a collection of requests for a congratulatory letter or a congratulatory message...... 567 Alleged Deliberate Misleading of the House by a Minister ...... 567 Tabled paper: Copy of a request for a congratulatory message for Bryan and Edna Hockins’ 60th wedding anniversary...... 567 Tabled paper: Copy of a fax communication result report for a request for a congratulatory message for Bryan and Edna Hockins’ 60th wedding anniversary...... 567 TRANSPORT (RAIL SAFETY) BILL ...... 568 Second Reading ...... 568 Tabled paper: Photo of camera at rail station...... 573 Tabled paper: Copy of newspaper article dated 1 November 2007 titled ‘Lights will be upgraded following crossing mishap’ and letter dated 4 November 2007 from RJ McLucas to Mr Robert Messenger MP regarding a crash between a cane locomotive and a heavy vehicle...... 586 Tabled paper: Bundle of documents relating to rail crossings...... 601 Consideration in Detail ...... 601 Clauses 1 to 4, as read, agreed to...... 601 Clause 5, as read, agreed to...... 602 Clauses 6 to 30, as read, agreed to...... 602 Clause 31, as read, agreed to...... 603 Clauses 32 to 35, as read, agreed to...... 603 Clause 36, as read, agreed to...... 603 Clauses 37 to 41, as read, agreed to...... 603 Insertion of new clause— ...... 603 Tabled paper: Explanatory notes to amendments to be moved in consideration in detail by the minister...... 606 Amendment agreed to...... 606 Clauses 42 to 50, as read, agreed to...... 606 Clause 51—...... 606 Clause 51, as amended, agreed to...... 606 Clauses 52 to 60, as read, agreed to...... 606 Clause 61, as read, agreed to...... 607 Clause 62, as read, agreed to...... 607 Clause 63—...... 607 Clause 63, as amended, agreed to...... 607 Clauses 64 to 75, as read, agreed to...... 608 Clause 76, as read, agreed to...... 608 Clauses 77 to 221— ...... 608 Clauses 77 to 221, as amended, agreed to...... 608 Clause 222, as read, agreed to...... 608 Clauses 223 to 347 and schedules 1 to 3—...... 609 Clauses 223 to 347 and schedules 1 to 3, as amended, agreed to...... 609 Third Reading ...... 609 Long Title ...... 609 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 610 Child Care and Another Act Amendment Bill ...... 610 SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT ...... 610 Table of Contents — Thursday, 25 February 2010

ADJOURNMENT ...... 610 Halifax Police Station ...... 610 Mitchelton Neighbourhood Plan ...... 611 Warrego Electorate, Floods ...... 612 Evans, Mr LA, OAM ...... 612 Mackay West State School, Asbestos ...... 613 Yorke Island, Sea Sponge Farming ...... 613 Caloundra Airport ...... 614 Albert Australia Day Awards ...... 614 Public Transport, Rural Areas ...... 615 Water Safety ...... 615 ATTENDANCE ...... 616 25 Feb 2010 Legislative Assembly 529 THURSDAY, 25 FEBRUARY 2010

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

Absence of Member Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise the House that I have been notified by the member for Bundamba that the member will not be present today and for the sittings of the House next month as she will be undergoing, and then recovering from, a medical procedure. I wish the honourable member well.

TABLED PAPER

MINISTERIAL PAPER TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial paper was tabled by the Clerk— Premier and Minister for the Arts (Ms Bligh)— 1776 Law, Justice and Safety Committee: Report No. 73—Inquiry into Alcohol-Related Violence: Interim Report: Government Response

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Deaths of Children; Facebook Mr SPEAKER: I call the Premier. Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.31 am): Thank you, Mr Queensland. Chances are! Mr SPEAKER: That is the second time you have done that. Mr Stevens: ‘Mr February’. Ms BLIGH: Mr February, indeed! Mr SPEAKER: It is part of our P150, Premier. Ms BLIGH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. All of Queensland has been shocked, saddened and indeed numbed by the deaths of two of our young children in the past fortnight. The tragic murders of Elliott Fletcher in Brisbane’s north and Trinity Bates in Bundaberg have shaken those two communities and made each and every Queensland parent question the fundamental safety of our children. These were shocking murders perpetrated upon very young children. They are now both before the courts and I do not intend to dwell on the details. However, what I am compelled to bring to the attention of the House today is the disgraceful and shameful activities that have followed these events in the world of cyberspace. Earlier this week, the education minister and I made mention of the fact that our children now have the world at their fingertips via the internet. Indeed, in just the past handful of years, the average child has gained access and can be exposed to a wealth of material that goes light years beyond what they could have accessed in the traditional school library or schoolyard of my generation. In short, the schoolyard no longer ends at the footpath where kids catch the bus. There is good and bad in this, and this week we have witnessed the very worst. Facebook pages set up as tributes to both Trinity Bates and Elliott Fletcher have been vandalised by internet users who I and I think other members of the House would have no hesitation in characterising as sick and depraved. These individuals have placed not only derogatory comments on these Facebook pages but sickening photographs and images from the underbelly of the internet, some depicting child pornography along with other revolting images. The vandalism of these sites is an abhorrence which has further traumatised already grieving families and communities. It is reprehensible behaviour that makes you question the very basis of human nature. This behaviour should be doubly condemned because these Facebook forums were established so that children not only across Queensland but across the country could express their 530 Ministerial Statements 25 Feb 2010 feelings of sympathy toward the families for a lost friend. They were intended as a useful tool for children to talk about their grief and to speak to each other about these harrowing deaths. To vandalise that opportunity, to strike out at this very important forum that allows children as well as their parents to express their emotions, I think is repulsive. I know that the police are watching closely, with the ultimate aim of punishing this nauseating behaviour with criminal charges. The issue of censorship particularly on something like the World Wide Web is a very sensitive one, and I am in no way suggesting that the operators of Facebook should be subject to vetting by an outside enforcement agency on a regular basis. However, I think that common decency, common sense and a dose of dignity should prevail. This should simply not be allowed to happen when these sorts of events occur. I have written to the operators of Facebook in the United States urging them to pay greater attention to precisely what material is posted on sensitive pages such as the tributes to these children. I have asked the company to accept some responsibility for the material on their site and to take steps to prevent this happening to similar sites in the future. I am not aware of this occurring in any other similar circumstance, but now that it has happened on two occasions in the space of just over a week I do believe that the company should take some responsibility for looking at what can be put into its system to prevent tribute sites from being vandalised in this way in the future. In the end, I trust that respect and decency will prevail.

Atkinson, Mr R Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.36 am): There is no doubt that crime and policing will continue to present challenges for both the government and the community into the future. As society develops and changes, so too does the type of crime being committed. Our government has continually increased funding for the Queensland Police Service to ensure that it has the staff and the resources to tackle crime and to keep our community safe. This year’s budget included a massive $1.7 billion allocation for our Police Service to deliver, amongst other things, an additional 200 police officers and five new police stations. Queensland needs and deserves a strong and stable leader of its Police Service to lead it in its response to crime. That is why I am very pleased to advise the House today that my government has resolved to reappoint Bob Atkinson as Police Commissioner for a further three years when his current contract expires later in 2010. Commissioner Atkinson was appointed the state’s top cop on 1 November 2000 after starting his career with the service on 2 July 1968. During his more than 40 years, he has served in a variety of locations across Queensland and in a range of roles within the organisation. Importantly, during his time in the position Commissioner Atkinson has overseen a 26 per cent drop in the overall rate of crime in Queensland, and that I think is an outstanding achievement. Above all—and I believe that both sides of the House would agree with me when I say this— Commissioner Atkinson leads our Police Service with honour and with integrity. He stands as an example of honesty and decency to all in the service. Importantly, I believe his leadership has inspired public confidence in Queensland’s Police Service, a very important ingredient in getting law and order right. I am sure that all members will agree that Commissioner Atkinson has made an outstanding contribution for the people of Queensland and the Queensland Police Service during his career to date, and his continued leadership will ensure Queensland’s response to crime remains strong.

Film Production Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.38 am): It has been said that politics is Hollywood for ugly people, and looking around it might just be true—I do not wish to confirm it. But it is with some excitement that I note a real piece of Hollywood will arrive in Queensland tomorrow. Many members of this House will have been to the cinema recently to see the box office hit Avatar. Avatar, which was directed by James Cameron, is on track to be the biggest grossing movie of all time. That is why I am very pleased that tomorrow director James Cameron will visit Queensland to work on his latest film, Sanctum, which is now shooting at the Warner Roadshow Studios on the Gold Coast. The government, through Screen Queensland, helped to attract this production to our state by offering significant incentives. In turn, Sanctum, of which James Cameron is executive producer, will generate over $25 million in economic benefits for Queensland and create 518 jobs in this industry. It is good news for the Gold Coast, which is home to our film industry. Mr Cameron is a hot contender for an Academy Award next week, with nine nominations including Best Director and Best Picture. To have him here in Queensland imparting his knowledge and his experience to our local filmmakers is a huge coup for Queensland. I am thrilled that he could take time from his busy schedule on the eve of the Academy Awards to visit his latest production. 25 Feb 2010 Ministerial Statements 531

Sanctum is a fast paced 3D action thriller which will use the same 3D cameras used to film Avatar. It is directed by Australian director Alister Grierson of Kokoda fame. Sanctum is based on the story of a diving expedition that was led by director Andrew Wight in 1988 into a remote cave system hidden beneath the Nullarbor Plain. During the expedition a freak storm caused the cave entrance to collapse, leaving 15 people trapped deep underground. A rescue mission was mounted, and incredibly everyone was saved. Sanctum is one of many major productions currently underway in Queensland. We are not only hosting exciting projects such as Sanctum but also seeing some great entertainment being created by the local industry. Another production underway in Queensland later this year will be Bait, which is a Queensland project that will also use 3D technology. Our government will continue to invest in the future of the film industry in this state. As I said, it is a very important employer particularly on the Gold Coast, but it is a very significant part of our cultural and artistic sector. I look forward, no doubt along with others, to seeing the movie when it is shown later next year.

Community Cabinets Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.40 am): This Sunday and Monday, community cabinet will take place in Innisfail and Mareeba. This will be my 21st community cabinet as Premier, and I am looking forward to it immensely. The high level of interest from the community leading up to this event has been unprecedented. We now have 275 requests for formal deputations. This is an all-time record in the 12 years that community cabinets have been operating. The last time community cabinet visited Innisfail was in August 2004, when there were 155 formal deputations, so it will be great to visit the region once again. These forums are an extremely successful way of providing people in regional and rural Queensland with the opportunity to meet face to face with their government and with the senior representative of government departments. Since becoming Premier, I have broadened the community cabinet format so that formal deputations are available with parliamentary secretaries and DGs on the Monday as well as on the Sunday. This opportunity has been taken up in a big way and has allowed many more people to meet with some of Queensland’s decision makers every time I take my cabinet out to the community. So far there have been 189 scheduled formal deputations for Innisfail on Sunday and another 86 for Monday in Mareeba. I think the overwhelming response from the people of Innisfail and Mareeba is an indication of the vitality and the engagement of this region. This grassroots consultation with the community on its own turf is one of the best ways of staying in touch and listening to the people of this state. Everyone is welcome to attend the forum. I expect we will see informal deputations in large numbers as well. As I said, I am very much looking forward to spending Sunday and Monday in Far North Queensland.

People’s Question Time Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier and Minister for the Arts) (9.43 am): On the subject of taking government to the people, tomorrow at 12 pm I will be on the panel of our very first people’s question time. This is a new series of live online forums that provide the community with another way to engage directly with the Queensland government. These forums will be held regularly throughout 2010 and will be centred on a specific issue relevant to all Queenslanders. Last week I announced that this first forum would focus on the future for education and invited people to submit questions online both before and during the live forum. As technology changes and enables us to contact and be involved with the community in more direct ways, we need to keep pace with that technology. I am pleased to advise the House that, as of this morning, the website has had more than 1,400 hits and we have received more than 100 questions from people right across the state wanting their voices heard on the best way to give Queensland children the flying start they deserve. No matter how many community cabinets we have in a state like Queensland, not everybody will be able to get to one. People’s question time is another way, through technology, of ensuring that, no matter where you live, you can access government directly. While the first round of submissions closed last night, Queenslanders can still get involved in this important conversation by watching the forum live and lodging questions online during the event. No matter where they live, people can have their say, ask their questions and hear answers to other questions that have been put. They can submit their views, ask the panel a question and be part of what I hope will be a very lively discussion about our children’s future. Tomorrow I will be joined on the panel by the Minister for Education; the State President of the Queensland Council of Parents and Citizens Associations, Margaret Black; the Executive Director of the Queensland Catholic Education Commission, Mike Byrne; and the Dean of the Faculty of Education at Griffith University, Professor Claire Wyatt-Smith. It will be an hour-long Q&A session. 532 Ministerial Statements 25 Feb 2010

Lest there be any suggestion that the government will choose only the easy questions to answer, let me assure the public and this House that the government will have no role in facilitating the session. The program will be chaired by lecturer Erin O’Brien from QUT’s justice department. She, as chair, will have sole responsibility for overseeing the session, choosing the questions and allocating them. We are keen to hear the community’s views and questions on any education issue but particularly on our proposed green paper reforms. For those who are interested in more information or who want to watch the first people’s question time, I direct them to the Queensland government website, where they can go into the area marked ‘Question Time’. I look forward to this next step in the process of e- democracy.

Dental Health Services, Funding Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Health) (9.45 am): I add to the Premier’s observations about Queensland films. The excellent movie Daybreakers by the Spierig brothers, shot mainly in the electorate of Beaudesert and also in the city of Brisbane, is currently out at cinemas throughout Queensland. An honourable member: Have you seen it? Mr LUCAS: Yes, I have seen it. I saw it earlier this week. It was very good. Mr Stevens: Did you get a part? Mr LUCAS: No. Do you want one? It is a vampire movie. As I have said in the House on many occasions, the health demands in a modern Queensland range across broad areas of service delivery. This government is committed to tackling the growing challenges of healthcare delivery to meet the changing demographics, to take advantage of new technology and to plan for the future demands of a growing state. Healthcare resources are necessarily shared between the Queensland and federal governments, but one area in which Queensland has had to step up to cover the gap is dental. The Howard government stripped funding for public dental services to the tune of $20 million per annum from 1996. Queensland stepped up more than any other state to fill this chasm and provides the most comprehensive service in Australia. That means that 45.3 per cent of the population is eligible for public dental health services. That is more than 1.9 million people. In 2008-09, Queensland funded public oral health services to the tune of $150 million. That is the highest level of funding in the nation. It is about equivalent to New South Wales in absolute terms—not even per capita. It is much greater in per capita terms. On an average day in Queensland Health, 1,948 adult dental appointments are provided; 2,210 child dental appointments are provided; and 953 school- age children complete dental treatment. But there is always more we can do. A significant part of the challenge is the nationwide shortage in dentists. That is why we are addressing workforce issues. Dental graduate numbers from Queensland universities doubled in 2008. The first cohort of dentists graduated from Griffith University in 2008, and a new dental program commenced at James Cook University in 2009. In the December quarter 2009, 220,838 patients were treated in the public system. As at 31 December there were 111,264 patients waiting. It is important to note that 96 per cent of these patients were in the bottom two of eight categories for routine check-ups. The median wait for acute emergencies is one day, but that is still a long list, so what can we do about it? The Rudd government’s Commonwealth Dental Health Program would have delivered an extra $52.8 million to Queensland over four years and provided an additional 187,000 treatments. There were 111,264 patients waiting in December, and this funding would have delivered 187,000 treatments. Why can’t we access that funding for Queenslanders? Because Liberal and National senators blocked the funding in the Senate. An opposition member interjected. Mr LUCAS: They blocked it in the Senate. I think that probably does make it their fault—cause and effect. Yet the focus the Queensland Liberal National Party has put on dental waiting times of late surely means it is a priority for it, too. But what do we hear from the other side of the House about their federal colleagues blocking the extra funding for Queenslanders? We hear only a defining silence from the Queensland LNP. In fact the member for Gregory, in his time as transport minister, is the only one who has ever taken on the other side. It is time the Liberals and Nationals in Queensland ended their silence and stood up to their colleagues in Canberra. Moreover, it is time the LNP in Queensland appointed a health spokesperson who will stand up to Tony Abbott and put the interests of Queenslanders first. 25 Feb 2010 Ministerial Statements 533

Grants Commission Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer and Minister for Employment and Economic Development) (9.49 am): Tomorrow the federal government will receive the final report from the Commonwealth Grants Commission on its 2010 review of GST methodology. In the draft 2010 report, handed down last year, the independent Grants Commission recognised for the first time a new capital assessment—that is, it linked the rate and magnitude of population growth to the true cost of the obvious requirement to build new infrastructure. In an attempt to siphon millions of dollars in extra GST funding, the New South Wales government and business community have been particularly vocal in denouncing this new methodology. Everyone in this House is aware that Queensland and Western Australia have led the way on economic growth this decade. We have also experienced the highest rates of population growth in the nation in recent years and have therefore faced the greatest infrastructure delivery task as a vast and growing state. I have joined forces with the Western Australian Liberal Treasurer to call for a fairer deal for our states, Queensland and Western Australia. This is a call made across the nation, across the political divide in support of a decision that should be made in the nation’s interests. What’s good for Western Australia and Queensland is good for Australia as a nation. The New South Wales government and its business community have run their usual ‘poor us’ media campaigns, but they refuse to acknowledge several key points. New South Wales has claimed that it will lose $1.9 billion in GST over the period from 2010-11 to 2012-13. However, over the same period it is conservatively anticipated that New South Wales will in fact gain an additional $2.1 billion from the equalisation of mining revenues. In fact, over the past five years New South Wales has gained around $3.5 billion from the mining revenue redistribution—all at the expense of Queensland and Western Australia. Since the last commission review in 2004, New South Wales has gained $1.3 billion and Victoria has gained $765 million in underlying terms while Queensland has lost $1.2 billion per year and Western Australia has lost $1.0 billion per year in underlying terms. New South Wales last year received a one-off budget balancing assistance handout of $118 million. The only other states in this category were Tasmania, Northern Territory and South Australia. In fact, over the last 10 years Queensland has invested $8,930 per person in infrastructure compared to an average of $4,870 by the other states. This alone underlines the importance of recognising the infrastructure task in Queensland. This government is determined to use every opportunity to get a better deal for Queenslanders. We are asking the commission to stand firm in the face of the intransigence of the New South Wales PR campaign. We are asking the federal government to uphold the independence of the Grants Commission in adopting its recommendations. Allowing Queensland and Western Australia, the country’s economic powerhouses over the last decade, to be underfunded by this methodology would have the effect of applying a handbrake to Australia’s future prosperity. TruckWeek Hon. RG NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (Minister for Transport) (9.53 am): Members may not be aware but this week is the first national TruckWeek. It is an opportunity to showcase trucking’s contribution to the economy and the community. Almost 75 per cent of freight in Australia is carried by trucks, including every item we see on our supermarket shelves. Mr Rickuss: Are you coming to Lights on the Hill on Saturday night? You’re invited. Ms NOLAN: Thank you. The number of freight vehicles in Queensland has grown by 23 per cent in the last four years alone, and is expected to triple by 2050. As the industry says, without trucks Australia stops. One of the biggest challenges this industry faces is inconsistent regulation between jurisdictions. Trucks do not know borders and even little differences in rules and paperwork can add big costs to doing business. This also adds to the price that you and I pay for goods at the checkout. Queensland has for some time been recognised as a leader in the field of heavy vehicle regulation. After a long campaign championed by the TWU’s Hughie Williams, this state became the first to introduce chain of responsibility legislation for driver fatigue. This ensures everyone—from big corporations down to depot managers—have a responsibility not to force truckies to drive while they are tired. I am pleased to announce today that Queensland will again lead the way on heavy vehicle reform. As everyone knows, the Rudd Labor government has been pursuing the goal of creating a seamless national economy. In the transport area, this includes proposals for national regulation of rail, heavy vehicles and maritime. Transport ministers have agreed to national heavy vehicle regulation, but have not agreed which jurisdiction would host the regulator. Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland were all in the running, but I am pleased to report to the House today that Queensland has won out. This is a fantastic outcome. 534 Ministerial Statements 25 Feb 2010

We will be the headquarters for the new CEO and regulator that will boost productivity and improve safety in this critical industry. It recognises that, as the most decentralised state, we have the diversity of experience to lead sensible, nationally consistent economic and safety regulation. We know the challenges associated with moving cattle thousands of kilometres on outback highways. We understand the impact a growing region has on meeting delivery times in urban areas. We have a strong history of working collaboratively and productively with industry to deliver win-wins. I want to particularly acknowledge the good work of industry leaders Hughie Williams from the Transport Workers Union and Peter Garske from the Queensland Trucking Association. I know they will be pleased with this announcement. I wish them, as I wish all members, a happy TruckWeek. Electrical Safety, Insulation Installation Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (9.55 am): Electrical safety has been a topic of considerable discussion in this House in recent days, particularly with regard to ceiling insulation. In Queensland, the Electrical Safety Office, or ESO, has been established as the independent regulator on electrical safety issues. The ESO is responsible for investigating electrical safety incidents and has more than 40 safety inspectors on the job. Members would recall that I have previously provided information to this House on 10 November last year and again on 11 February this year, outlining some of the actions that the Queensland government and the ESO in particular have undertaken in response to electrical safety incidents within the ceiling insulation industry. Since I provided the most recent update, federal minister Peter Garrett on 19 February 2010 announced that the federal government’s Home Insulation Program would be discontinued and will be replaced by a household Renewable Energy Bonus Scheme. In announcing these changes, Minister Garrett reaffirmed his commitment to pay for electrical inspections of all existing foil installations funded under the former home insulation program. The Electrical Safety Office has also identified possible ongoing risks for homeowners and electricians and other tradespersons associated with foil insulation. For these reasons, the Electrical Safety Office has this week issued safety advice to electricians, tradespersons and householders, warning of these risks and providing advice in dealing with them. This information is available on the Electrical Safety Office website at www.eso.qld.gov.au and is being distributed to electricians and licensed contractors throughout the state. Electrical workers undertaking work in these homes are at risk when working on electrical equipment and have been reminded of their obligation to operate safely. Other tradespeople such as plumbers, pest controllers and communications technicians who perform maintenance and other works in these homes may also be at risk, and have been advised to switch off power to all circuits before entering the ceiling space. Homeowners with foil ceiling installations are advised to stay out of the ceiling space and to report any electric shock or unusual electrical activity. Furthermore, this week the Electrical Safety Office attended a meeting in Canberra with the federal minister and various industry representatives to outline to the federal government their views on safety aspects for existing insulation installations and the proposed new scheme. Among the groups who also provided input were the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; the Communication, Electrical and Plumbing Union; the Australian Foil Insulation Association; Master Electricians; the National Electrical and Communications Association; the Master Builders Association; and the Housing Industry Association. The ESO is typically notified of electrical incidents by the police, emergency services or by energy suppliers. These complaints can also be referred to the ESO by another government agency or come from the public via phone, fax, email, letter or in person. As at last week, the ESO was making inquiries into 56 complaints involving insulation installation. These include investigations into the three fatal incidents that have occurred in Queensland. All these investigations need to run their course, without disruption or intervention from politicians. The Electrical Safety Office and Workplace Health and Safety Queensland are independent and have my full support to continue conducting thorough investigations, leaving no stone unturned. If the investigations and evidence support a prosecution, I expect that the full weight of the law will be brought to bear. All employers and duty holders should be aware of and comply with their legal obligations under the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 and the Electrical Safety Act 2002. As the minister responsible for electrical and workplace health and safety in this state, I will continue to take all measures necessary to protect Queensland workers and householders. Home Insulation Program Hon. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading) (9.59 am): Yesterday I gave a commitment to the House to report back about a teleconference on 29 April. At the invitation of the federal Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, DEWHA, the Queensland Office of Fair Trading participated in a teleconference on 29 April 2009 to discuss the 25 Feb 2010 Ministerial Statements 535

Commonwealth’s proposed Home Insulation Program. The Queensland Office of Fair Trading provided input on consumer protection issues concerning possible false and misleading representations and dodgy suppliers and marketing practices. A memorandum of understanding was subsequently put in place between DEWHA and the Office of Fair Trading to facilitate the exchange of information on consumer complaints received by the Queensland Office of Fair Trading. The Queensland Office of Fair Trading has liaised with the Queensland Electrical Safety Office and other relevant agencies on issues which fall outside the Office of Fair Trading’s jurisdiction or area of expertise. The home insulation scheme is a Commonwealth initiative and, as such, all complaints regarding the federal government’s insulation scheme have been referred to the appropriate federal department, the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships) (10.00 am): Today’s preamble event on the Speaker’s Green will be a celebration of the enduring Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture. We will be entertained by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander performers, as dancing and music are such integral parts of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture. They are key ways our Indigenous people have expressed and represented their lives and beliefs going back thousands of years. There are an increasing number of highly talented Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are travelling the world performing. In fact performers, both locally and internationally, have been capturing audiences, and the growth of the industry is truly one of their success stories. Today’s performances will include the internationally acclaimed Nunukul Yuggera Aboriginal dance troupe. The Nunukul Yuggera Aboriginal dancers have been in existence for over 10 years, showcasing traditional Aboriginal culture through song and dance. The Nunukul Yuggera dancers have toured France, Greece, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, Korea, New Zealand and Holland, to name just a few countries visited. The Nunukul Yuggera have a wealth of experience performing ceremonies and tourist events and will no doubt provide riveting entertainment today. There will also be a performance from the Torres Strait Islander Wagga Dance Co., the first incorporated Torres Strait Islander dance company in Australia. Wagga Dance Co. is one of the few professional dance troupes which spans three generations. Leaving Moa Island in the Torres Strait many years ago, their culture is still practised on mainland Australia in order to show the beauty of their customary practices to others. Contemporary Aboriginal dancer Jesse Martin will perform. He recently made the top 40 in So You Think You Can Dance. His dance was so amazing and so beautiful that all three judges at the televised audition were brought to tears, as were many thousands of those watching. Acclaimed Torres Strait Islander singer and songwriter Georgia Corowa, who mesmerises audiences, will also sing. The international recognition and cultural success of today’s performers is further evidence of the changing face of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australia. Wild Dogs Hon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Rural and Regional Queensland) (10.03 am): Wild dogs cost the grazing industry tens of millions of dollars a year, and wild dog attacks are again in the news this week. It is therefore timely to inform the House about one of our research projects to tackle the problem. Biosecurity Queensland is examining the effectiveness of the guardian dog known as Maremmas. Maremmas originated in Italy and have been used for centuries by shepherds to guard sheep from wolves. Using GPS data loggers, we have been monitoring the movement of Maremmas, recording their locations every 30 minutes. This is to test the theory that guardian dogs mark out a territory that is then avoided by wild dogs. We are interested in how far beyond their paddocks guardian dogs patrol and whether there are any gender or individual differences in daily movement patterns. The research project is based at the Flinders shire property Dunluce, where Ninian and Ann Stewart-Moore run cattle and sheep. Since purchasing a team of Maremmas in 2002, their sheep losses have gone from 15 per cent of their flock each year down to three per cent. They believe there is a huge role for using livestock protection dogs in the grazing industry. Biosecurity Queensland senior zoologist Lee Allen will now capture and collar wild dogs that live on the properties adjoining Dunluce to see how the movements of guardian dogs and wild dogs overlap. Last December I fulfilled a long-term ambition of visiting the wild dog barrier fence. The fence is administered by Biosecurity Queensland and one local told me that it is the best it has looked in decades. I was joined by members of the Queensland Dog Offensive Group, which is chaired by Brent Finlay. This government set up QDOG to bring together experts from industry, the local community and all levels of government to tackle wild dogs together. Everyone agrees that we must act in a coordinated way across the landscape instead of trying to tackle it on a property-by-property individual basis. Research such as the Maremma project is also essential. 536 Ministerial Statements 25 Feb 2010

Atkinson, Mr R

Hon. NS ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services) (10.05 am): The Queensland Police Service has come a long way since November 2000. We have seen the number of sworn officers increase from 7,500 to more than 10,400 today. We have seen in excess of 80 new police stations and police beats commence operation or be refurbished or renovated. The trend crime rate is going down, with the overall rate of crime in Queensland now 26 per cent lower over the past nine years. Since November 2000 the Queensland Police Service has also received national and indeed international recognition for its work, and I particularly highlight the work of Task Force Argos, which investigates child abuse and exploitation, and the Fraud Squad. I highlight these achievements because they cover the period from when Bob Atkinson was appointed Queensland’s Police Commissioner. In the eyes of Queenslanders, Bob Atkinson is a strong, trusted and respected leader. I would describe him as the ‘rock of Gibraltar’ of the Queensland Police Service—a decent, honest cop of the highest integrity and independence. That is why I am delighted the Premier has today announced the government’s intention to recommend to Governor in Council Commissioner Atkinson’s reappointment for a further three years. Bob Atkinson started his career as a probationary constable on 2 July 1968 before being sworn in on 30 October of the same year. He worked his way up through the ranks to detective constable, detective sergeant, inspector, superintendent and chief superintendent before being appointed assistant commissioner in November 1997 and commissioner on 1 November 2000. He has served in locations across the state including Goondiwindi, the Sunshine Coast and Cairns. During his career, Bob Atkinson has received four Commissioner’s Commendations, the National Medal, the Australian Police Medal, the Police Commissioner’s Award for outstanding contribution to Australasian policing and the Queensland Police Service Medal for ethical and diligent service. The government has absolute confidence in Bob Atkinson’s abilities to lead the Queensland Police Service into the future. As the Premier mentioned, there will be challenges ahead in the areas of policing and law and order. Bob Atkinson has the strength and experience to lead the Queensland Police Service in its response to these challenges.

Domestic Building Contracts; CeBIT 2010, Germany

Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Information and Communication Technology) (10.08 am): As advised to the House in September, a memorandum of understanding was signed by me, the Queensland Master Builders Association and the Housing Industry Association. This MOU involves incorporating fairer contractual provisions in domestic building contracts published from 1 January 2010. The broad principles set out in the MOU include prompt commencement dates of contractual work; prompt presentation of extension of time claims with relevant supportive information; alternative progress payments to match work progression on site and inclusion of default provisions for liquidated damages; provision of appropriate certificates of practical completion; right to suspend works limited to substantial breaches; and an owner’s right to terminate for a building contractor’s failure to hold appropriate licences. I would like to inform the House that much progress has been made by the associations in ensuring that these principles are incorporated in their standard form contracts. The Queensland Master Builders Association is in the final stages of making all amendments in accordance with these principles and I would like to compliment in particular Mr Graham Cuthbert from the Master Builders Association for his swift action in ensuring that their contracts comply. The Housing Industry Association has made steady progress and I am advised that their contracts will comply shortly. These reforms have been a major step forward for consumers and building contractors as fairer contracting will ensure an equal playing field in the building industry for both parties and it is unique to Queensland. It will represent a unanimity of view between the major housing associations and the Queensland government. These reforms will ensure greater certainty regarding price and duration of a building project and prevent vague and ambiguous contractual provisions favouring one party. Once again, I would like to compliment both associations for their cooperation, assistance and leadership in voluntarily moving to reform contracts in the residential building industry. I also take this opportunity to inform members that I am travelling to Germany later today to attend the world’s largest IT industry expo. Whilst at the CeBIT expo—which stands for the Centre of Office and Information Technology—I shall be meeting with officials from the German government, officials from the CeBIT organisation and attending a number of IT industry focused functions and demonstrations. This event is the leading IT industry exposition in the world and it highlights the latest and best in IT technology. I look forward to reporting to the House on my return. The good news is that I will be back for the next session. 25 Feb 2010 Ministerial Statements 537

LNG Industry

Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade) (10.10 am): Queensland’s LNG industry has the potential to create more than 18,000 jobs and add more than $3 billion to gross state product over the next decade. We have abundant gas resources to support both the proposed LNG developments and the needs of Queensland gas users. However, we also recognise the need to ensure that future gas supplies are available to support the requirements of both major industrial users and gas fired electricity generators.

Following extensive consultation with industry, the government has decided on a policy approach to ensure security of supply. We have decided to implement a prospective gas production land reserve under which gas prospective land released for exploration tenure may be conditioned to require that any gas produced from a subsequent petroleum lease be sold only to the Australian market where warranted. Decisions as to whether tenure should be conditioned will be based on the results of regular market assessments. This approach will ensure future supply to the Australian gas market as well as providing LNG proponents with the certainty that they need to move forward with their respective projects.

Just last week the Queensland government issued a pipeline licence to Arrow Energy to transport natural gas from coal seam gas fields in the Surat Basin to the proposed 1.5 megatonne a year liquefied natural gas plant at Fisherman’s Landing. The Queensland government will also be appointing a gas commissioner within the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation to provide a focal point for LNG industry development and for industries seeking to secure gas contracts within Queensland. The gas commissioner will also be responsible for leading the gas market review process.

As a further measure to promote competition within the gas market, we have also committed to implementing a short-term trading market by midway through 2011. This decision represents a win for all parties. It means gas producers can now focus on proving up reserves to support both LNG projects and the local market. It gives surety to investors in LNG projects and will open the door to further major investment in these and other new projects. A successful LNG industry will bring more jobs and benefit all Queenslanders. The government is providing a focal point for LNG industry development and for industries seeking to secure gas contracts within Queensland.

Teaching Scholarships

Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training) (10.13 am): Yesterday, the Bligh government awarded 21 aspiring teachers scholarships to pursue one of the most important callings in life: educating our children. The Pearl Duncan scholarships and the Bid O’Sullivan scholarships are worth up to $20,000 and are an investment in the future teachers of this state. What we are doing is building a workforce of teachers that reflects the diversity of the students learning at state schools up and down the coast and out west. The scholarships are awarded to year 12 graduates from rural and remote Queensland and, in the case of the Pearl Duncan awards, to those with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds who are year 12 graduates, non-teaching staff in the Department of Education and Training, postgraduates and mature-age students.

The Labor government started these awards in 1999 and 2000, paving the way for more than 70 recipients to start teaching in schools from Mornington Island to the Gold Coast. The Bligh government has made it crystal clear that our focus is on the education of students across this state and that we should be up there with the best. Our focus is certainly not equalled by those opposite who continue to push an empty cart when it comes to future policies in education and training. They have no policies and no clue about how to deliver such a thing. In stark contrast, our government is delivering a flying start to Queensland children. That flying start extends as well to the recipients of these scholarships, who receive the valuable scholarship funds over four years for their education and training. Providing quality teachers is just one part of our strategy to boost the performance of all our children.

This is a mighty and worthy task, proven by the scholarship namesakes Pearl Duncan and Bridget ‘Bid’ O’Sullivan. Pearl became the first tertiary trained Aboriginal schoolteacher in Australia in 1951, while Bid was a teacher at a tiny bush school before the Second World War who, in 1959 and at the age of 63, established and became the first teacher at the School of the Air in Cloncurry. What fantastic role models whose reach extends into the 21st century; they were grand teachers. The scholarship recipients will be wonderful teachers and our students, ever the object of our attention, will be better off for it. I thank my parliamentary secretary, Carolyn Male, for her assistance in presenting those awards yesterday. 538 Ministerial Statements 25 Feb 2010

Energy Efficient Design Hon. SJ HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) (10.16 am): I wish to advise the House of a tropical design forum that I will be hosting in Cairns to celebrate the unique energy efficient characteristics of Queensland homes. In the face of climate change, it is important that energy efficient design features, such as outdoor dining areas and our trademark verandas, are widely recognised and rewarded. Feedback from the forum will help instruct national building guidelines to determine the energy efficiency of Australian homes. Under a Council of Australian Governments initiative announced in April 2009, all new residential buildings will have to meet six star or equivalent energy efficiency requirements by May 2011. While the initiative is encouraging, not all Australian homes are the same. At the moment, the proposal is governed by a very broad set of national building codes that could determine the energy efficiency ratings of homes throughout our state. But we all know that Queensland is unique. We live in subtropical and tropical climates and that needs to be reflected in the guidelines that determine our energy efficiency ratings. The Bligh government is leading the charge to have unique design features in Queensland homes accredited. We cannot let southern-centric building codes drive expensive and unsuitable design outcomes that are incompatible with the way we live. For example, the existing national guidelines suggest that suspended floors be insulated to achieve six-star ratings. Anyone lucky enough to live north of the border knows that that is a largely unnecessary and expensive condition. In fact, in Queensland, heat transfer through suspended floors is an appropriate feature for the vast majority of the climate year. The traditional Queenslander is one example of how the state’s energy efficient housing designs and materials should be recognised and rewarded. To ensure that the six-star standards are in step with Queensland’s enviable lifestyle, as I say, I am convening the tropical design forum on 2 March. This forum will provide an opportunity for industry stakeholders and experts to discuss the proposed energy efficiency requirements of the 2010 Building Code of Australia and to play an important role in ensuring that the final building codes improve rather than impede our trademark tropical characteristics. Roads Infrastructure Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads) (10.19 am): The Bligh government is building a road network for Queenslanders that is second to none. We have got road crews in hard hats hard at work right across the state. It is a record $3.53 billion investment and it is generating a record number of jobs. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr WALLACE: Around 30,000 of them, member for Gregory, and many of them in your electorate. And I will be getting even more for you, brother. Let us start up north. The Mulgrave River Bridge, at a cost of $48 million, is signed, sealed and delivered. Heading down the highway, the Townsville Ring Road, costing $119 million, is open for business. The Townsville Port Access Road, at $190 million, has had stage 1 completed and stage 2 is underway. Heading south, work is well underway on the Forgan Bridge. There is a cost of $148 million for two new bridges across the Pioneer River at Mackay. We are boosting safety on roads in the booming Bowen Basin with $15 million worth of work. Out west, roadworkers will soon be hard at work upgrading the Gulf Developmental Road. They will build a big new turning bay for truckies at Critters Creek. Mrs Kiernan: Hear, hear! Mr WALLACE: The member for Mount Isa has lobbied hard for that one. The Bundaberg Ring Road, costing $100 million, is another one that is signed, sealed and delivered. It means no more heavy loads heading through the CBD. We have done a lot of work on the Maryborough-Hervey Bay Road to make it stronger for the 7,000 vehicles that use it every day. The Cooroy-Curra stretch of the Bruce Highway, neglected by those opposite and the previous federal government, is a $613 million project generating 1,650 jobs. The Sunshine Motorway upgrade is signed, sealed and delivered. Caloundra Road is completed. We are building the new Houghton Highway bridge between Brighton and Redcliffe at $315 million. These projects are providing jobs, jobs, jobs. Closer to Brisbane, what will soon be known as the Sir Leo Hielscher Bridges represent a massive $1.88 billion investment. We have three big projects on the go on the Ipswich Motorway worth billions of dollars. There is work underway on the Pacific Motorway between Springwood and Gold Coast. 25 Feb 2010 Ministerial Statements 539

We are investing in more than roads; we are investing in the future of Queensland for Queenslanders. We are planning for their future and giving them a safe and reliable road network. There will be 33,500 kilometres of road: equivalent to the distance from here to New York and back. Start spreadin’ the news!

Heritage Register

Hon. KJ JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability) (10.21 am): Today I am pleased to report that this government’s commitment to the people of Townsville to preserve the historic Jezzine Barracks has been further strengthened. I know that the member for Townsville will welcome the news that the Kissing Point fortification and Jezzine Barracks in Townsville are among the latest additions to Queensland’s Heritage Register.

The Kissing Point fort occupies a spectacular site on the rocky headland separating Cleveland Bay and Rowes Bay. Built in 1891 as a two-gun battery, it formed part of the coastal defence established to protect the colony of Queensland. The land to the south and west of the fort, where Jezzine Barracks was developed during World War II, was used from 1887 for regular training by North Queensland military units.

Mr Wallace: John Howard wanted to sell it.

Ms JONES: I take the interjection from the member for Thuringowa that John Howard wanted to sell these barracks when he was Prime Minister. The state government, with the Commonwealth government and the Townsville council, is partly funding a $40 million redevelopment of the precinct so that it can become a valuable recreational area for Townsville, its visitors and tourists, while also preserving the city’s military heritage.

Another place now listed is Caloundra’s oldest surviving structure, the Caloundra Lighthouse, which played a crucial role in coastal navigation from the 1890s to the 1970s. It remains a prominent landmark from Moreton Bay. I welcome the member for Caloundra’s support. Also recently entered on the register are three places on the Atherton Tableland: the Barron Valley Hotel in Atherton built in 1941 and used as accommodation and a mess hall for soldiers in World War II; the Majestic Picture Theatre at Malanda, one of the oldest country picture theatres in Queensland; and the Malanda Falls Swimming Pool. Three cane lifts in the Mackay region were also entered. I am sure that the member for Mackay and the cane industry are happy about that.

I am personally committed to the conservation of Queensland’s heritage. These eight additions to the register, which now totals over 1,620 places right across Queensland, will ensure important elements of Queensland’s history will be conserved for the benefit of the community and future generations.

Disability and Aged Care Services, Funding

Hon. A PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Disability Services and Multicultural Affairs) (10.24 am): I am pleased to advise the House that hundreds of Queensland disability service and community care providers are eligible for a share of $13.5 million in capital funding to upgrade their facilities. It will allow them to deliver enhanced services, which is great news for Queensland seniors and younger Queenslanders with a disability and their families.

The new funding will be of enormous benefit to Queensland’s 147 Meals on Wheels organisations throughout Queensland. Meals on Wheels is a much loved community based initiative delivering around 2.5 million meals in Queensland each year. Meals on Wheels delivers an essential service to people with a disability, and Queenslanders value the tremendous work its volunteers do each and every day. They help people with the basic necessities of life and assist them to remain living independently in their own homes in their own communities. This funding will be of particular benefit to service providers who may need to upgrade their kitchen facilities to meet improved food safety standards. I encourage all members here to get in contact with their local Meals on Wheels service providers and encourage them to apply for this funding.

I am also pleased to inform the House of a $920,000 funding boost to expand education and training services for carers right across Queensland. This will benefit organisations such as Carers Queensland and the Independent Living Centre Association. The opposition has no policies for seniors and Queenslanders with a disability, but the Bligh government is getting behind them to give them the very care and support that they need. 540 Notice of Motion 25 Feb 2010

REVIEW OF THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE SYSTEM COMMITTEE

Order of Appointment Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.26 am): I move— 1. A select committee, to be known as the Review of the Parliamentary Committee System Committee, be appointed to conduct an inquiry and report on how the Parliamentary oversight of legislation could be enhanced and how the existing Parliamentary Committee system could be strengthened to enhance accountability. 2. In undertaking this inquiry, the committee should consider— • the role of Parliamentary committees in both Australian and international jurisdictions in examining legislative proposals, particularly those with unicameral parliaments; • timely and cost effective ways by which Queensland Parliamentary Committees can more effectively evaluate and examine legislative proposals; and • the effectiveness of the operation of the committee structure of the 53rd Parliament following the restructure of the committee system on 23 April 2009. 3. The committee should include in its report options on models for structuring the Queensland Parliamentary Committee system. 4. The committee have the power to call for persons, documents and other items. 5. The committee report to the Legislative Assembly by the end of 2010. 6. That the Committee consist of nine Members of the Legislative Assembly: Chair Ms Spence; Mr Finn; Mr Horan; Ms Male; Mr Moorhead, Mrs Pratt; Mr Schwarten; Mr Seeney and Mr Springborg. 7. That this resolution has effect notwithstanding anything contained in Standing or Sessional Orders. Motion agreed to.

ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE

Report Mrs SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (10.27 am): I table the Environment and Resources Committee’s report No. 2 titled Energy efficiency: Queensland’s first energy resource and the summary of conclusions and recommendations from report No. 2. This report on the committee’s inquiry into energy efficiency improvements makes 18 recommendations for the government to consider implementing to assist Queenslanders to make energy efficiency improvements to their homes and businesses. It seems that everyone is chasing a bargain these days. Whether it is a new fridge, a car or a house, it is often the lowest asking price that clinches the deal. But there is a second price—the ongoing running costs—and it is a cost we often forget about. As time goes by, what seemed like a bargain could turn into a money pit. It is time to think about the true cost of our energy use, both economic and environmental, and to cut down on needless waste. Energy efficiency, which is about doing the same or more with less energy input, holds the key. It starts with a simple question: is it energy or fuel efficient? All Queenslanders need to ask this question a lot more and before any other considerations. Some of the answers are in the stars—energy efficiency star ratings, that is. Appliances, equipment, cars and homes that are more fuel or energy efficient may cost more initially but can save much more in terms of energy or fuel costs in the long run. After a trebling of energy use in Queensland over the past 30 years, it is time to look forward and change our ways for a better and more sustainable future. This report will help with this. I take this opportunity to sincerely thank committee members for their efforts to present this unanimous report, conclusions and recommendations. I also acknowledge the extraordinary dedication and efforts of the committee’s secretariat and other parliamentary staff who assisted our inquiry. Finally, I would like to thank the many groups and individuals who shared their ideas for making energy efficiency the highest priority and Queensland’s first energy resource. I commend this report and its findings to the House. Tabled paper: Environment and Resources Committee, Report No. 2—Energy efficiency: Queensland’s first energy resource [1777]. Tabled paper: Environment and Resources Committee, Report No. 2—Energy efficiency: Queensland’s first energy resource, conclusions and recommendations [1778].

NOTICE OF MOTION

Disallowance of Statutory Instrument Mr SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (10.29 am): I give notice that I will move— That subordinate legislation number 266, Water Resource (Barron) Amendment Plan (No. 1) 2009, tabled in the House on 9 February 2010 be disallowed. 25 Feb 2010 Questions Without Notice 541

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

School Group Tours Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, we will be visited today at Parliament House by the Ipswich Grammar School and the greater Brisbane zone schools constitutional convention.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Comments by Premier, Australian Labor Party State Conference Mr LANGBROEK (10.30 am): My first question is to the Premier. Last night the Premier made a grotesque comparison between Labor’s privatisation of Queensland Rail and Australia’s single worst criminal tragedy at Port Arthur, where 35 human lives were senselessly slaughtered and others scarred for life at the hands of a madman. I ask: having had time to reflect on her comparison with this senseless slaughter of life, will the Premier now admit that her comments were insensitive and offensive? Ms BLIGH: Nothing compares to a massacre of human lives. Every decent Australian, including me, knows that. My comparison was with the leadership of John Howard. I stand by the points I made and they were these: firstly, John Howard had what it took when he needed to stand up to vested interests in his own party to act in the national interest. What I am doing in relation to the economic strategy that we are pursuing here in Queensland is standing up for what I believe and what I know is the right thing for the people of Queensland—their economic security and the stability and strength of this state. Mr Johnson: John Howard knew nothing about that massacre but you created this mess in Queensland. That’s the difference. Ms BLIGH: John Howard had to take on people within his own party, within the coalition, and he did so with courage and he did so in the interests of the people of this country. It is one of the things that I frankly admire him for. There are not a lot of them, but that is one thing which I can honestly say that I, along with many Australians including Labor voters, admire him for. I am taking on vested interests in my own party on this issue. I understand that. Everybody understands that. It is not an easy issue for the Australian Labor Party. But my job is to do what I know is best for the people of Queensland. It is human nature that we often find change very difficult. There is no doubt that there is a group within the Labor Party that are finding this issue very tough. I speak with them regularly. I talk to branch members about it. I understand how many people are grappling with this in a very genuine way. My role as leader is to take them with me, to take the issue forward and to ensure that ultimately the right thing is done to secure the jobs and the economic strength that working families in this state need. That stands in stark contrast to the lack of leadership from the member for Surfers Paradise, who regularly kowtows to the lowest common denominator in the National Party. He is never prepared to take on the lowest common denominator in his own party. He kowtows to them on tree clearing. He kowtowed to them last week on surrogacy. He kowtowed to them this week on Indigenous issues. He even kowtowed to them on the issue of fluoride. On the one issue that people thought he had a backbone on, he supported a referendum rather than action. So when it comes to taking on his own party in the national interest or in the public interest, the member for Surfers Paradise stands for nothing, has nothing to say and is not worthy of the name ‘leader’. Sale of Public Assets Mr LANGBROEK: My second question is also to the Premier. I refer to her answer and the statement she just made in it and compare it to the fact that this week the Premier has told the House that Queenslanders were warned before the election of Labor’s plans to privatise Queensland Rail. But last night and again this morning, in contradiction to all she has said during the week, the Premier claims that she is just like John Howard—she reacted to events that unfolded after the election. I ask: will the Premier say which of her two statements mislead the House and does she now understand why Queenslanders cannot believe one word that passes her lips? Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Those on my right will cease interjecting. Ms BLIGH: I think we have seen some pretty interesting activity from those opposite this week but that one takes the cake. I will do my best to answer the question, but frankly I have no idea what it means. There has been no point during this week when I have said anything different on this issue than I have said on every occasion that I have been asked about it—that is, that I went to the Queensland people in March last year having outlined to them in the most transparent way the very difficult economic 542 Questions Without Notice 25 Feb 2010 circumstances we were in. During the election campaign I said to them what I knew to be the truth, and that was that whoever was elected would face very difficult times, that they would have to make some tough economic decisions and that Queenslanders should decide who they thought was best placed to make those decisions. We then made the decisions that needed to be made, and what has happened? They are working. We now have more Queenslanders in work as a result of our economic strategy. Our determination to keep the building program has seen jobs growth each of every one of the last six months. Opposition members interjected. Ms BLIGH: Those opposite hate it when we say the word ‘job’. They cannot stand the word ‘job’. When they were in government they got rid of the employment portfolio and they still have not got over it. When we say the word ‘job’ they all wriggle in their seats, and yell and scream. They cannot stand it. But when we say the word ‘cuts’ that puts a big smile on their face because they love a cut. They love to cut jobs, they love to cut spending, they love to cut investment. We went to the election with a very clear choice: jobs not cuts. What have we delivered? We have delivered jobs, jobs, jobs. What we saw just last week was the Leader of the Opposition recommit himself to his policy of cuts. If he had the opportunity to be on this side of the House, he would be taking 12,000 jobs out of Queensland each and every year. His legacy would be 36,000 jobs gone. That is what he said. I said I would deliver jobs. We are delivering jobs. We are protecting the jobs of people in our building program. We are creating new jobs in industries like LNG. We are providing job creation programs like the Green Army. We told people that if they voted for us we would deliver jobs. And you know what? We are doing what we told them we would do. We are delivering the jobs that Queensland’s working families need. In this job you have to have the courage to make the decisions necessary and you have to have what it takes to go the distance. Kowtowing to the lowest common denominator in your own organisation will never get you there. Bligh Labor Government Mr WENDT: My question without notice is to the Premier. Can the Premier please inform the House of what the government has been delivering for Queenslanders this week? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for his question, because I know that he is one member of this House who actually cares about the real world out there and what is being delivered for people who need their government to be acting on their behalf. So let us have a little look at what the government has been delivering for people this week. Firstly, we have delivered better child-care standards for Queensland children—legislation that will give parents better information; it will give them the names and activities of those child-care organisations that have breached the requirements. We have moved to create the best teacher standards for Queensland children, with a new test for teachers to ensure the highest standards of literacy and numeracy. We have launched our Ready Readers volunteer program for schools in Queensland. Those ads are out there now recruiting people who have something to offer in our schools. We have been working with other sectors of education and have formed this week a stop violence alliance. I have to say how disappointed I am to hear the Leader of the Opposition not only condemning the government for this initiative but in doing so condemning Catholic education and independent schools who stood shoulder to shoulder and want to work together. I know how committed Catholic education is to this. I know how committed the private schools of Queensland are to this. I thank them for their partnership, and I know that, working together, we will achieve better outcomes for our schools. We have also been part of leading a debate on better growth management in Queensland, and we took an important step forward in the national process of reconciliation with the development of a constitutional preamble that recognises the first Queenslanders and those who have made a contribution from all over the world. We have also this morning established a parliamentary committee to implement some of my accountability reforms to oversee changes and improvements to the parliamentary process. I am very pleased that the Leader of the House will be chairing this committee; she is someone with very extensive experience in the parliamentary process here in Queensland. A year on from the election, what do we have from those opposite? As a result of this week, zero. We have had another week when they could have offered Queenslanders something, but what did they offer? Zero effort, zero outcome. You put nothing in, you get nothing out. We did see them have a big debate about the internal machinations of the Australian Labor Party, and we welcome their fascination. That was a great opportunity to talk about the great party. Mr Lucas: They invited them all to come to the gallery last night. None turned up. Ms BLIGH: The invitation went out to fill the gallery but, quick as a flash, nobody came. Another week passes with the Queensland government getting on with the job, delivering for the people of Queensland, improving our schools, working for better hospitals, building the infrastructure that a growing state needs, and another week passes when nothing happens on the other side. (Time expired) 25 Feb 2010 Questions Without Notice 543

Congestion Tax Ms SIMPSON: My question is to the Minister for Transport. Yesterday in this House the Premier said that a 30c per kilometre congestion tax was rejected by cabinet. Will the minister say why she supports a congestion tax so strongly that she would submit it to her cabinet colleagues for consideration? Government members interjected. Ms SIMPSON: After all, cabinet cannot reject a new tax— Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on my right will cease interjecting. Can you repeat the last part of your question, please? Ms SIMPSON: Will the minister say why she supports a congestion tax so strongly that she would submit it to her cabinet colleagues for consideration? After all, cabinet cannot reject a new tax unless the minister had proposed it. Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on my right will cease interjecting. Ms NOLAN: The prospect of some kind of congestion charge has been widely discussed in the broader Queensland community for a great number of years. The RACQ has an established policy to introduce a cordon charge in South-East Queensland. In a recent edition of the Road Ahead the RACQ said— Congestion charges for city-bound motorists could be the way of the future for Brisbane, as it battles to beat overcrowded streets. A recent transport costs survey conducted by the RACQ’s public policy unit found more than 50 percent of members were prepared to pay $5 or more a day to cut congestion on the capital city’s roads. So, first, the RACQ has over a long period now put this matter very actively on the agenda. Second, members who read widely would know that, as part of the Henry tax review, the federal government has recently similarly put congestion charging on the agenda. Indeed, Ken Henry in the second half of last year made a speech to a CEDA function in which he argued that such a proposition should appropriately be considered. So this has very actively been on the agenda from sources other than the state government for some time. But from the search that I have conducted, do you know where I found that proposition was first mooted in a Queensland government context? It comes from the 1997 Integrated Regional Transport Plan. In 1997, the document that was released by the then National Party government said— There are a range of options mooted in this strategy— and they include the following sentence— Ms SIMPSON: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The question is why the minister supported this proposal taken to this cabinet. Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on my right will cease interjecting. I will hear the point of order. Ms SIMPSON: The question that the minister has failed to answer is why she supports a congestion charge and took it to cabinet. Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on my right will cease interjecting. I call the minister in conclusion. Ms NOLAN: In 1997 Vaughan Johnson proposed considering charges for using roads on a pay- as-you-go basis so the cost of each trip becomes more obvious. So this has been on the agenda for some time and we took it to cabinet to rule it out. (Time expired) Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: The House will come to order. Both sides of the House will cease interjecting. Population Growth Ms GRACE: My question without notice is to the Premier. Can the Premier outline what measures the Queensland government is taking to better manage growth? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for her question. We all know that Queensland is experiencing rapid population growth. In fact, every year we are receiving around the same number of new residents as make up the population of Darwin, and they have to be accommodated across the state. Around 70 per cent of those new Queenslanders come into the south-east corner of our state, and that is putting the south-east corner under a lot of pressure. To deal with that, we have put in place one 544 Questions Without Notice 25 Feb 2010 of the best planning instruments in the country. The South East Queensland Regional Plan has been recognised as one of the most important planning documents in Australia by the Planning Institute of Australia. Like any planning document, we need to be constantly vigilant and make sure that it is coping, that it has the right parameters and that it is the right framework as circumstances change. Getting planning right in the south-east corner is a complex interrelationship between land supply, state and local government approval processes, infrastructure development and rollout. Getting all of that right requires, as I said, constant monitoring. That is why the government will be working with local governments and others with expertise in this area to deliver a South-East Queensland Growth Summit at the end of March. This will be an important opportunity for us to sit down with those who are working within the system and determine whether or not we need to see any further changes within either the infrastructure program or the implementation of SEQIPP. I think it is reasonable to ask what those opposite think about the population issues that we are facing and what, if anything, they might offer in relation to them. I was very interested to see an article in the Sunshine Coast Daily some time ago with the heading ‘LNP pledge more affordable houses’. Like the Treasurer yesterday, I got very excited when I saw that. I thought we might be on the verge of a policy, or at least we might have some anticipation built that we might have an LNP policy. What we have is a statement— Mr Fraser: Have you found one? Ms BLIGH: Well, you need to look hard. What I found was that when the shadow Treasurer was questioned about the LNP’s views on growth and population, he said— You can’t stop people coming here. You can’t put up a fence at the border. Fair enough. At least he acknowledges that. He then went on to say that the population issue was a significant one and that the LNP would look ‘to the findings of the Local Government Association of Queensland study into carrying capacity as a guide to party policy’. However, he said in that article that he had not read it yet, even though it had been sent to him before Christmas. I thought I would table the document for the House lest members think he was worried about the weighty tome. Tabled paper: Document, dated November 2009, by Morton Consulting Services Pty Ltd titled ‘Overview of Recent Trends in Residential Lot Supply and Demand in SEQ’ [1779]. These are the three pages that were issued by the Local Government Association in relation to recent trends in residential lot supply. It is a very interesting read, because it does counter some of the arguments being put in some parts of the development community about land supply. I recommend it to the member for Clayfield. It is actually an interesting read. It has tables and graphs in it so it does not take much time. If you read it, you might find the basis for a policy. (Time expired) Sale of Public Assets Mr SPRINGBORG: My question without notice is to the Premier. I refer to this petition received this morning from Queensland trade union leaders stating their continuing opposition to her privatisation plans, and I ask: isn’t it true that Queensland Labor’s own state president, Andrew Dettmer, has signed the petition calling for a special Labor state conference? Given that the Premier has now lost the confidence of not only Queenslanders but also Labor’s own rank and file, will she abandon her job- destroying privatisation plans? Tabled paper: Letter, dated 25 February 2010, from PJ Simpson, ETU State Secretary, to Mr Anthony Chisholm, ALP State Secretary, relating to a requisition for a special ALP state conference [1780]. Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. We have had another revelation from the Liberal National Party. It appears, according to those opposite, that there are some trade unions in the Labor Party who do not agree with the government’s asset sale decision. I wish I knew; I wish someone had told me earlier. I thank the member for Southern Downs for another great revelation. All I can say is, ‘Keep up, speedy.’ There have been plenty of opportunities for this point to have been made. As I said earlier today, there is no doubt that leadership from time to time requires people in my position to take on some of the interests within their own party. I have what it takes and my colleagues in my caucus have what it takes to put the interests of Queenslanders first because that is what we are elected to do. The president of the Labor Party is entitled to his views. He has members who are employed by some of these assets, and he is entitled to sign whatever petition he likes. But, Mr Speaker, you know what? In the Labor Party it is the leader of the parliamentary caucus that runs the government; it is not the president of the party—not an unelected party official—who rings you and tells you what to do. On this side of the House I lead the party. On that side of the House the party leads them. That is the difference. What we know is that on that side the member for Surfers Paradise and the member for Southern Downs get daily instructions from the puppet master McIvor, the president of the party. On our side the Labor Party in government was elected to take this state forward, and that is what we are doing. We are delivering jobs. 25 Feb 2010 Questions Without Notice 545

Mr Springborg interjected. Ms BLIGH: I hear words from the member for Southern Downs about Queensland Rail. Guess what? Queensland Rail employed 600 new people in the last four months. Have any jobs been destroyed in Queensland Rail? No, there have been 600 new jobs. That is what is happening in Queensland Rail. Do you know why? Because it is growing and it is going to keep growing. Guess what it will do when it can leverage private investment? It will get bigger. There will be more trains and more train drivers, not fewer. There will be more people who are needed, not fewer. We stand for jobs, we are delivering jobs, and that is what working families need. My School Website; Hospitals Ms O’NEILL: My question is to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health. I note reports today that the federal government is considering establishing a ‘My Hospital’ website similar to the My School website. My question is: would the Queensland government be supportive of such a move? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question. The Bligh government is committed to openness and transparency. We want to lead the nation in terms of reporting hospital figures. Recently, IPART, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, in New South Wales suggested Queensland Health’s quarterly report as a very good model for reporting hospital performance. We have the shortest elective surgery waiting lists in Australia and the third longest emergency department wait times. We want to make that the best. One of the good things about reporting is that it shows areas where we need to improve. It exposes that sort of scrutiny. Reporting is what is important to us in this area. It is very interesting that the other side is not committed to reporting at all. We know that because there are a number of members of parliament on that side who were elected long before me and who were part of a government that did nothing about it. The members for Maroochydore, Southern Downs, Gregory, Warrego, Toowoomba South—who was also a health minister—and Mirani were all here long before I was. It is a tired old opposition, melded of course with new extremists like the member for Beaudesert. I was doing a bit of reading on the ABC online website, which indicated that Queensland opposition leader John-Paul Langbroek said he needs a catchy T-shirt slogan like his predecessor. We had ‘Go the Borg’. So we ‘Go the Borg’—came and then went. And ‘Go the Borg’—came and then went. And ‘Go the Borg’—came and then went a third time. This morning he is at it again. The field marshal’s baton is in the knapsack, ready to dong the Leader of the Opposition. But the Leader of the Opposition is so organised on policy that he cannot get a policy out. He cannot do his promised reshuffle because he is dependent upon the old drones for support, and he cannot even get a slogan on a T-shirt. I have one suggestion and one suggestion only for the LNP: it ought to take the mandate of the member for Beaudesert which he used in that famous email, ‘We’ve got to get back to basics.’ The best way to get back to basics if you cannot even think of a slogan for your T-shirt is to abolish the T-shirt and go back to the ironing Borg. Honourable members interjected. Mr Springborg: Get your shirt off, Paul. Infrastructure Mr NICHOLLS: Mr Speaker— Mr SPEAKER: I would appreciate it if you would keep your shirt on, member for Clayfield. Ms Nolan: Me, too. Mr NICHOLLS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just getting over that last input from the member for Ipswich. Ms Nolan: I am getting over the image. Mr NICHOLLS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We had the member for Lytton, whose answer to the population explosion was to hand out condoms last week. I do not know what he is talking about in policy terms. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seat. The House will come to order. Remember that on A- PAC this is a family show. I call the honourable member for Clayfield. Mr NICHOLLS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will not call you what the Premier called you first up this morning. My question is to the Premier. Former Labor mayor Jim Soorley has today lifted the lid on Labor’s systemic failure to build infrastructure in Queensland. He highlights Labor’s abuse of power and the waste of billions of dollars because of Labor’s delays. Will the Premier explain why state Labor failed to even allow other people to build desperately needed roads and bridges, and for so many years caused congestion and costs to blow out? 546 Questions Without Notice 25 Feb 2010

Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. I think what we see is that the Labor Party is a broad church that has many views, and people will have their own recollections of various matters. What I can say is that my recollection of those years is that there was some extraordinarily good work done that Queenslanders continue to benefit from. There was the construction of the Inner City Bypass, which was a joint project facilitated by the state government and constructed by the Brisbane City Council under the leadership of Lord Mayor Jim Soorley. Progress was made to develop the South East Busway, which has been a critical part of the infrastructure that is delivering better public transport outcomes.

What we have in Queensland is the best infrastructure program in the country. It is an infrastructure program that is not just about this year or next year. It is an infrastructure program that plans ahead for nearly two decades. What it does is lay out not only what we need for the population now but also the infrastructure that will be ahead of the curve and be in place as population grows. What do we have from those opposite on this issue? What we have from those opposite on this issue is, firstly, that they would not borrow money to build any of it. So we know that the LNP would not build infrastructure. We have from the LNP an economic strategy that says that debt is not a good thing, but under the LNP debt would be $25 billion higher than under our government.

We have a strategy to reduce the debt profile going forward by some $25 billion. Those opposite do not have a strategy—no strategy. They have a do nothing economic strategy. What does that mean? What is the consequence of having a do nothing strategy? It is that infrastructure would fall over. Infrastructure would not be built. So it is rank hypocrisy for them to come in here this morning and dare to mention the word ‘infrastructure’ when their own economic strategy, their only history on this, was to freeze all capital works.

I congratulate Jim Soorley on his leadership of the Brisbane City Council during his time as lord mayor. I certainly look back at those years and see the great things that were done in this city that many people who are now residents of the city or visitors to it are benefiting from. It is not just about what happened 10 years ago; from our perspective, it is what happens in the next 10 years. It is about the infrastructure that we are building that is employing people right now, creating jobs, building a great city, building a great state.

Grants Commission

Mr KILBURN: My question without notice is to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware of any advice that contradicts claims from other states about the current allocation of GST revenue among the states?

Mr FRASER: I thank the member for Chatsworth for his question because he, like all members of this House, is interested in ensuring that Queensland gets its fair share and that Queensland, along with the other states that have led the story of the nation’s prosperity over the last decade, get their fair share. Tomorrow we will see the independent Commonwealth Grants Commission release its report on its review of the methodology for redistributing the GST around the nation. In that regard, I am calling on the independent Grants Commission to observe its independence and for the federal government to observe the independence of the Grants Commission and recognise that states like Queensland need a fair share.

That is why I have joined with my colleague across the political divide, across the nation, the Liberal Treasurer in Western Australia, Troy Buswell, to stand and call for a better deal for the growth states, for the economic powerhouse states of the last decade—Queensland and Western Australia— and a deal that recognises the role we have played in authoring the nation’s prosperity. But there are other claims from other Treasurers in other states that there is somehow a raw deal being visited upon some states, particularly those south of the border.

The problem with the claim from the New South Wales government in particular is that we need look no further than that sorry book, the New South Wales budget papers, to put the sword to the claim. If we flick through to page 615 and look at the measure of how much GST per person the states get, what is the answer for Queensland according to the New South Wales budget papers? It is $1,721 for each man, woman and child in Queensland. According to New South Wales, what is the divvy up for New South Wales? It is $1,752. It is above the odds. If we look underneath we see that this year New South Wales will receive 12½ billion dollars in GST while Queensland will receive $7.7 billion. If we flick a page back we find that the New South Wales government, so keen to get into other states about the allocation, joins with the powerhouses of South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory as the only other mendicant state that got a special bailout grant last financial year of some $109 million. If we want to put a sword to the claim of the New South Wales government look no further than the New South Wales budget papers. 25 Feb 2010 Questions Without Notice 547

The reality of course is that this is an issue which should transcend the political divide in this state. I know the LNP is singularly incapable of putting forward a policy idea of its own or advocating for the interests of Queensland, but on this one I ask it to reach out, to stand with me and the Liberal Treasurer from Western Australia and actually back a call for the future benefit of our state and to back a call for more of an allocation to Queensland. If those opposite cannot come up with a policy of their own, can they at least join in with the Liberal Treasurer of Western Australia and me and call for a better deal for the people of Queensland, for the growth states of Western Australia and Queensland? What is good for Queensland and Western Australia is good for the nation as a whole.

Home Insulation Program Mr STEVENS: My question is to the Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading. I refer the minister to his answer in the House yesterday relating to the house fires this week and to speculation of a causal link to the Labor Party’s discredited home insulation scheme. The minister this morning has passed the buck to his colleague the Attorney-General. I table the Minter Ellison report into risks posed by the program. Tabled paper: Extract from Minter Ellison risk register relating to the home insulation scheme [1781]. It says there is a high risk posed by substandard insulation. It awards responsibility for policing standards in Queensland to the Office of Fair Trading. The safety of this defunct program was the minister’s responsibility until 17 February. Why did the minister do nothing to protect Queenslanders over the last 10 months? Mr LAWLOR: I am not too sure whether the member was listening but the simple fact of the matter is that there was a teleconference on 29 April to discuss the federal government’s home insulation scheme. The Office of Fair Trading provided input on consumer protection issues which is what its jurisdiction is. It agreed to a memorandum of understanding with the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts to provide information on the consumer complaints received by the Office of Fair Trading. The Queensland Office of Fair Trading has subsequently provided fortnightly reports to DEWHA of all complaints received, of which there have been 208. I went through that yesterday. Mr Stevens: That’s not what the report says. Mr LAWLOR: I am just telling you what the situation is. An honourable member: What did you do? Mr LAWLOR: I am telling you what the situation is. The Office of Fair Trading has also been in contact with other relevant agencies, such as the Electrical Safety Office, concerning issues which fall outside the primary jurisdiction and area of expertise of the Office of Fair Trading. That is the simple facts of the matter. That is what happened. Instead of asking the same question all the time and getting the same answer maybe you would like to direct yourself to some policy instead of the thought bubbles and random statements that pass for policy on that side of the House. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would ask the honourable minister to direct his comments through the chair. Mr LAWLOR: I will give a few examples of the random thoughts that we get from those opposite. In terms of extended hours for licensed premises, what did we get from the member for Noosa and the member for Currumbin? They wanted the government to do something about it. We did something about it and the leader described it as a stunt. We know the diverse views of those opposite on Gold Coast light rail. We do not know where they stand with the Carrara upgrade. Some are for it and some are against it. To give credit to the member for Mermaid Beach and the member for Surfers Paradise, they supported the Carrara upgrade, but everyone else was against it. We have not got a clue what their policy is on glassings. What about the environment? What about bats? The member for Dalrymple wants to shoot them and the bloke from Indooroopilly says they are an important part of the environment. What is the policy of those opposite on gaming machines? We do not know. We can only assume it is what is espoused by the member for Beaudesert. That is, gather up all the poker machines and take them to Roma and turn Roma into the Las Vegas of Queensland. I presume that is their policy. You blokes ought to get together and introduce yourself and compare your views. (Time expired) Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. 548 Questions Without Notice 25 Feb 2010

Schools, Performance Mrs SCOTT: My question is to the Minister for Education and Training. Could the minister outline for the House how the Bligh government is delivering on its commitment to improve school performance through transparency and accountability measures? Mr WILSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. Openness and transparency are an integral part of government, and the Queensland government, under this Premier, is leading the nation in having open and transparent government. No other state has right to information legislation like we have in this state. No other state publishes the extent of information that we publish around education and training. We want high standards in education. We want high performance in education. One important way of achieving that is having openness and transparency. Only last night we passed legislation that will henceforth require child-care centres to have a hard-copy logbook in the centre recording notices of compliance, because we want parents to have access to information they have a right to know. Only a month ago we commenced a web based publication scheme for child-care centres indicating the notices for compliance that may have been issued against them. Why? Because we want parents to know. They are entitled to know, because the safety and wellbeing of their children is paramount. We also published the 2008 NAPLAN results across the state last year. We published the 2009 NAPLAN results across the state last year. We published, for the first time, the exclusion and suspension data across the state last year. We published the year 12 outcomes last year and do so each year. We published the asbestos register for Queensland schools for the first time last year. We now have the federal government initiative of My School, which we have supported because it gives parents access to information that empowers them to have conversations with their children’s teachers and principals so that they can get a better understanding of what they are entitled to know about, and that is that they are getting the best education for their children at their school. That is how committed we are to openness and transparency in government. What do we hear from the other side? Where is the openness and transparency from the other side? Where is their education policy? Where is their training policy? Where is the openness and transparency about the $20,000-a-plate dinner? We are still waiting for that. Where is their transparency about abolishing the State Schools of Tomorrow program—abolishing the funding program that has rebuilt over 83 science buildings and 260 science labs? Where is the transparency about what they are going to do about the $889 million kindergarten rollout program over the next four years? Are they going to abolish that? We stand for jobs, jobs and jobs and improved openness, accountability and transparency because parents have a right to know. The children’s interests must come first. (Time expired)

State Schools Dr FLEGG: My question without notice is to the Minister for Education and Training. Since 1998 the number of state schools in Queensland has dropped by 62 while the independent and Catholic sectors have added 46 new schools. The student population has increased by more than 133,000, but of these only 48 per cent have chosen to attend a state school. Minister, why are Queensland families avoiding the Bligh state school system? Mr WILSON: I am delighted to answer this question, because I think you will find that this government supports choice. We support parents choosing to send their child to an Education Queensland school, a Catholic school or an independent school. What we do not support is the relentless, unforgiving, unbalanced and continuous attack on state schools by those on the other side. We put money on the table to underline our commitment to choice for parents across Queensland schools. About $485 million a year—about $50 million is capital and about $430 million is recurrent—is paid to the non-state-school sector because we support choice. You will find—strange to say—that parents are exercising choice. You will also find, if one looks at figures across Australia, that Queensland, if I recall my figures correctly, has a higher proportion of the total student population in the state school sector than many of the other states, and that is fine. We do not mind. We do not mind what the figures are, because we support choice. We support choice because we want the best education for Queensland students. Why do you think the three sectors do so many things together? Why do you think there is a constitutional convention of 150 students from across the three school sectors in the parliamentary precinct today, educating them about rights of citizenship? Why do you think there was an alliance created between the three school sectors around meeting the common challenges that all schools face around student behaviour and violence in schools? It is because we act as a government on behalf of all parents; we act as a government of behalf of all students. We will continue to work in a very united and cooperative way across the three school sectors because choice matters. 25 Feb 2010 Questions Without Notice 549

Not only does choice matter; we as a government have an obligation to assure Queensland parents that, no matter which system they choose, we want the best possible education for their children. We set high standards to ensure we boost performance across Queensland schools, and we will continue to do that. Why will we do that? It is because that is absolutely the right thing to do. Koala Protection Ms van LITSENBURG: My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability. I refer the minister to my representations about Redcliffe’s environmental areas and particularly our koalas, and I ask: is the minister aware of any conflicting views about protecting koalas in Queensland? Ms JONES: I thank the honourable member for Redcliffe for the question. As she is well aware, the Bligh government has made a number of commitments in recent times with regard to protecting koalas and koala habitat in South-East Queensland. Late last year we announced $15 million for acquiring new koala habitat. Yesterday I announced a further $4 million for new nature refuges specifically for koala habitat in this region. Earlier in the week I announced that we are opening up tenders for $400,000 worth of research information for koalas suffering from disease. In recent weeks we have seen a number of comments about the state government’s koala— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Stop the clock. Either take it outside or turn it off. An honourable member interjected. Mr SPEAKER: No. I will not tolerate electronic equipment in the House at any stage, particularly mobile phones. I think it lacks dignity. So I would ask all honourable members to switch off their phones. While I am at it, I think it is discourteous to the House to have earphones in your ears while parliament is in session. There are plenty of places outside. Do it out there. I call the Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability. Ms JONES: As I was saying, there have been a number of recent comments about the koala planning instruments and mapping in South-East Queensland, and I want to make a number of points here today in the parliament. The koala habitat values mapping was done by an independent consultant, GHD, and was publicly released in July last year. That is, it has been on the public record and on the website and in the South East Queensland Regional Plan since July last year. The mapping was developed by experts in their field and the project was overseen by a group of nationally recognised koala scientists such as Professor Frank Carrick and Greg Gordon. In fact, the mapping won the environmental sustainability award at the 2009 Asia-Pacific Spatial Excellence Awards. To be honest with you, some stakeholders think we have gone too far with our mapping and our planning instruments in protecting habitat; others think we have not done enough. It is always a challenge when taking on something for the first time. We want to ensure we have comprehensive mapping for koala habitat in South-East Queensland, but we want to get the balance right. Councils were invited to provide individual mapping as part of the project, including sightings data and mapping information. Five councils took up this opportunity to do that, but the Moreton Bay Regional Council did not. Every council still has an opportunity to provide detailed feedback on maps and instruments as part of the consultation, which is open until the end of this month. I have to say that I am very pleased that over 68 different submissions have been received from conservation groups, universities, developers and industry organisations. I understand that the council of mayors will also be making a submission. Councils such as the Sunshine Coast Regional Council and the Ipswich City Council already have. We want to get this right. This is about engaging with all sectors to make sure we are all working together to ensure we have proper koala habitat mapping and proper koala protection in South-East Queensland and balancing that with the growth that we are seeing in our region. Absent in all of this debate has been the LNP. I look forward to receiving a submission from the LNP when it comes to koala protection. Instead, I get letters from two of its members saying that I am stalling the project and then others say that we are killing koalas. I look forward— (Time expired) Beef Imports Mr HOPPER: My question is to the Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Rural and Regional Queensland. I refer to the Rudd government’s lifting of the ban on beef imports from countries with mad cow disease from 1 March, and I ask: can the minister advise what steps, if any, the minister has taken to inform Canberra of the absolute devastation an outbreak of mad cow disease would have on Queensland’s beef industry, worth $3.5 billion a year? Mr MULHERIN: I thank the honourable member for the question. I would just like to show him the front page of Queensland Country Life—‘Get a grip’. We have been working with industry. It was industry, through the Cattle Council of Australia, that approached the federal government in relation to this issue. The industry believes in free trade. The members opposite do not support free trade. This is about ensuring that we will continue to have market access. 550 Questions Without Notice 25 Feb 2010

As from 1 March, countries that have been affected by BSE will have the right to export product to Australia. Having said that, the federal government has ensured that— Mr Hopper interjected. Mr MULHERIN: If the member for Condamine would care to stop interjecting he will learn something. The member for Condamine is always out there whipping up apathy. He is a policy-free zone. He is stuck in the past—a bit like being a dinosaur. They refer to him as ‘Swapasaurus’ Ray. If the member for Condamine would listen and read what is in the paper as well he might be educated. The federal government has said that, as from 1 March, 25 countries can make application to export beef to the Australian market. These decisions are based strongly in science. I repeat that: these decisions are based strongly in science. That means that the country that would be exporting to Australia would have to demonstrate that it has strict protocols in place to prove that the product that is coming into Australia is free from BSE, that is, it will have to show trace back and also it will be open to inspection by AQIS inspectors. This issue is really about free trade. If by chance one of our cattle came down with BSE, under the current arrangements—prior to these changes on 1 March—every piece of beef on Australian supermarket shelves would be removed. This would have a devastating impact. By the way, this policy approach is supported by AgForce and the MLA. So I suggest that the member for Condamine go out and consult with industry instead of listening to the dinosaurs who are anti free trade. He should go out and start thinking about developing policy that will drive economic development in the agribusiness sector.

Consumer Protection Mr SHINE: My question is to the Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading. Will the minister update the House on how important it is for consumers to protect themselves against fraud? Mr LAWLOR: I thank the member for the question. In 2009 the Office of Fair Trading received 2,173 complaints relating to scams—an increase of 800 compared to the number received the previous year. Next week is National Consumer Fraud Week, which aims to raise awareness of the serious threat to personal identity and financial security caused by scams. One in 20 Australians— Mr Schwarten: They’ll get the LNP for that then. Mr LAWLOR: I am coming to that. One in 20 Australians will be scammed this year, with consumers set to lose more than $1 billion. There is no bigger scam, though, than that coming out of LNP offices at the moment. After last year’s forged billboard fiasco, the members opposite are up to their old tricks again. There are documents coming out of LNP offices. This time they have disenfranchised their own constituents by bodgying up requests for congratulatory messages from the Prime Minister, the Governor of Queensland and the Premier. They have written into the applications that the constituent requests only congratulatory messages from the Queen and the Governor. Officers from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, when checking those instructions with the constituents, have been told that they would welcome a congratulatory message from the Premier and also from the Prime Minister. It seems that the member for Mudgeeraba and also the member for Kawana have taken it upon themselves to add additional criteria—apparently against the wishes of their constituents. Of course, we know that in this regard the member for Kawana has a bit of form. He was caught doctoring a letter of support for Peter ‘Slippery’ Slipper in November 2001. So he has some form in that regard. Tampering with requests for congratulatory messages just for cheap political gain is really ripping off the elderly. I think it is a sad indictment on the LNP. Let us be frank: the opposition hardly has a good reputation when it comes to looking after the interests of the elderly. Just think about Joyce Baker, whose life savings were dwindled away by a firm by the name of Boyce Garrick. At that time the member for Caloundra was a member of that firm. These are the new standards for the LNP: rip off whoever you can, even the elderly, with a congratulatory letter. Even with a congratulatory letter they are prepared to touch the elderly.

Water Supply Mrs PRATT: My question is to the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Minister for Trade. Landholders entered into an agreement with South East Queensland Water to supply stock and domestic water. Those landholders have now been informed that the management of stock and domestic water will be transferred to the Water Grid Manager. The Water Grid Manager has now informed landholders that their water is secure for only 12 months from the commencement of the Moreton resource operations plan but there is no guarantee thereafter. Will the minister’s department ensure that water is supplied to these landholders after that period and ensure their future? 25 Feb 2010 Crim. History Screen. Leg. A’ment Bill; Dis. Serv. (Crim. History) A’ment Bill 551

Mr ROBERTSON: The whole purpose of conducting a water resource plan is to provide long- term security for water entitlement holders, whether they be stock and domestic users or whether they be industrial, commercial or residential users. Without having the full details of the examples that the member has given, it is a little difficult to provide her with a detailed explanation other than to say that, as a result of the water resource planning process, they would be technically correct in terms of the advice that is provided to those landholders in that the whole purpose of a water resource planning process is to, at the point that that is complete, provide long-term security. Obviously, at this stage it would be impossible for the Water Grid Manager to give that absolute guarantee. However, having said that, I think you need only look at the outcomes of all of the water resource plans that have been conducted to date to note that all stock and domestic users—at least in my memory—have had their existing entitlements recognised after the water resource plan has been completed. So whilst I am happy to check—and I invite the member to provide me with the details of her constituents’ concerns—I would say that, as a matter of past practice, all stock and domestic entitlement holders have their rights recognised at the conclusion of the water resource planning process and, of course, the resource operations plan that follows on from that. If there is anything in addition to that that can be done to provide that level of certainty whilst the process is underway, we are happy to have a look at that. But I would be surprised, frankly, if their entitlements were not to be recognised post the process that is currently underway. Antihooning Laws Mrs KEECH: My question is to the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services. Can the minister advise the House of the success of the government’s antihooning laws? Mr ROBERTS: I thank the member for the question and for her interest in this matter. The government makes no apologies for being tough on hoons, particularly those who are repeat offenders. I am pleased to see that the National Party is supporting the government and indeed acknowledging the government’s tough stance. I refer to a media release by the shadow minister last Friday in which the member for Gregory says— The simplest way to stop serial hoons from continuing to speed is to take their car away from them. That is exactly what the government is doing. Since these laws were introduced in 2002, over 17,000 hoons and repeat offenders have had their vehicle taken away from them for at least 48 hours. There are two types of laws: type 1 laws deal with hooning and type 2 laws deal with repeat offenders. And those laws were introduced in 2007. We are hitting the hoons where it hurts by taking their vehicle off them, and I thank the National Party for its support on the tough stance the government is taking. The National Party regularly stands up and says how tough it is on crime. They beat their chests, they talk about bringing back the gallows and throwing away the keys, but let us look at the facts of the National Party’s record on law and order. Let us look at the police to population ratio. When the National Party was in government there was one police officer for every 507 people; under Labor there is one for every 427 people. There has been a 10- year downward trend in crime rates under Labor—a 21 per cent drop in the overall crime rate. There has been a 42.5 per cent drop in the rate of property offences and an 18.7 per cent drop in the rate of offences against a person. When the National Party was in government it was solving less crime. Under the National Party, the clearance rate for offences against the person was 62 per cent. Under Labor it is 88 per cent. The National Party is all talk and no action when it comes to law and order. (Time expired) Mr SPEAKER: The time for question time has ended. CRIMINAL HISTORY SCREENING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL DISABILITY SERVICES (CRIMINAL HISTORY) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading (Cognate Debate)

Crim. History Screen. Leg. A’ment Bill; Dis. Serv. (Crim. History) A’ment Bill Criminal History Screening Legislation Amendment Bill resumed from 24 February (see p. 521), on motion of Ms Struthers, and the Disability Services (Criminal History) Amendment Bill resumed from 24 February (see p. 521), on motion of Mr Cripps— That the bills be now read a second time. Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (11.32 am), continuing in reply: Yesterday evening when this cognate debate was adjourned I was about to provide to the House some examples of distressing incidents of when breaches of trust occur between a carer and a person with a disability. I take no satisfaction from canvassing these incidents, but I think it is important that I underline and demonstrate the fact that these scenarios are real. 552 Crim. History Screen. Leg. A’ment Bill; Dis. Serv. (Crim. History) A’ment Bill 25 Feb 2010

I refer firstly to an article that appeared in the Courier-Mail in September of last year titled ‘Carer in abuse of boys’. I will read from the article to underline the circumstances. It states— A former carer who tied a severe autistic six-year-old boy to a toilet was yesterday sentenced to 150 hours of community service after she was found guilty of deprivation of liberty and assault against two boys at a Bribie Island care home. The article goes on— The person was found guilty of one count of deprivation of liberty and two of common assault for which she was sentenced to 150 hours of community service and not guilty on six similar charges. The individual involved was found guilty of depriving the liberty of a boy when she tied him to a toilet with a bedsheet and was assaulting him on another occasion by hitting him on the head and back with a fly swatter. The judge involved told the court that the person who was convicted abused the trust of residents and their families with her level of maliciousness in dealing with severely disabled children who could not help how they were born. What was done was totally inappropriate, the judge said, and it seems that there was a culture in this place that permeated from the top down. I take the opportunity to illustrate this point further in relation to an article that appeared in the Toowoomba Chronicle on 2 February this year which reported that an individual was found guilty of assaulting an intellectually disabled man in his care. The person had been employed to care for a man with a disability at the complainant’s home in Toowoomba for about six months in 2008. The prosecutor involved told the court that while the man was on the floor the convicted individual had rubbed his face into the carpet causing abrasions and bruising to various parts of his face. The judge in this instance accepted the fact that the man was difficult to care for and known to be violent on occasions and by the facts put before the court the struggle was instigated by the complainant. However, the judge said carers such as the man convicted, charged with caring for the most vulnerable of the community, were expected to show patience and restraint. I pause to draw those matters to the attention of the House because I think it is important that we underline that these terrible and unfortunate scenarios do occur in our community. I know that all members of this House would find these examples appalling and would join with me in condemning these criminals in the strongest possible terms. I am not saying by any means that there is widespread abuse of people with disabilities by carers. I would reject in the strongest possible terms the proposition that I am trying to mount some sort of scare campaign or that I am unduly alarming the community. I would never try to do that. What I am saying is that, while they are exceptions, these scenarios do occur and they must be dealt with. Being a carer for a person with a disability is such an important role that we ought do everything we reasonably can to try to minimise these exceptions. That is what I am about and that is what I am trying to do by introducing this bill. This bill proposes to introduce a standard: that a person with a violent criminal history is not a person that we should be entrusting with the care of a person with a disability. The current legislation does not prevent someone with a violent criminal history from being a carer and, as a result, people with a disability are at risk of relying on someone who has a history of becoming abusive or violent. The amendments in the government’s Criminal History Screening Legislation Amendment Bill will not make any improvements in this regard. The LNP opposition’s bill would change that and prohibit someone who has been convicted of a violent offence from occupying the paid position of a carer for a person with a disability. This amendment bill also proposes to allow the chief executive of the Department of Communities to decide whether a person who has a history of violent charges but who has not been convicted should be allowed to take a job as a carer. These provisions are considered important to ensure the highest level of protection for people with disabilities. While a prohibition notice in that situation would not be issued automatically, as would occur with those with convictions, those with charges relating to violence would be automatically referred to the chief executive for their consideration. Considering that it is relatively common for domestic violence charges to be dropped in certain circumstances, it is imperative that a potential carer’s history is reviewed and that a violent history is not discounted when a person’s wellbeing is at stake, especially when that person is as vulnerable as a person with a disability. This bill will introduce a new level of protection that will ensure carers who are doing a good job can continue in their work, service providers can continue to make a difference in people’s lives and all people with a disability can have confidence in their paid carer. I think what is being proposed in this bill by the LNP opposition is fair and reasonable considering the vulnerable Queenslanders we are trying to protect. I am rather disappointed that the government cannot see its way clear to support the bill. I turn now to respond to the contribution by the Minister for Disability Services and Multicultural Affairs. The minister claimed that the LNP opposition’s bill could potentially cover private arrangements involving families and individuals. I can only reiterate that the intention of the LNP opposition’s bill is clear and that this is for the provisions in our bill to extend to carers who are employed. That is the case and it is spelt out clearly in the definitions provided for in the bill. I draw the minister’s attention to the definition, which states— carer means a person engaged by a service provider to care for another person who needs ongoing support because of a disability. 25 Feb 2010 Crim. History Screen. Leg. A’ment Bill; Dis. Serv. (Crim. History) A’ment Bill 553

That is clear and it cannot be misinterpreted. It does not relate to family members or private arrangements. What the minister is suggesting is nonsense. This bill is clearly aimed at setting a higher benchmark for carers engaged and employed by a disability service provider to care for a person with a disability. In addition, it does not extend to volunteers who are unpaid for their efforts. What it does seek to do is make every possible effort to reasonably ensure vulnerable people are protected. I want to also address the comments by the Minister for Disability Services and Multicultural Affairs in relation to the amendment extending short-term approvals for the use of restrictive practices from three to six months. When I addressed this issue, I made it clear that I sympathised with the challenges faced by disability service providers to develop behaviour management plans within the existing three-month time frame, particularly given the scarce resources they have at their disposal to assist with the implementation of the Carter report recommendations. I made the point that disability service providers have been left without adequate financial support from the government to implement the recommendations of the Carter report. I also wondered whether an extension of the short-term approval time frames for restrictive practices would be necessary if disability service providers were provided with adequate resources by the government to implement the Carter report recommendations within their individual organisations. The minister appears to be content that, even when the transition period for the implementation of the Carter report recommendations has been completed—and indeed we ought to keep in mind that it has been extended—disability service providers will still have up to six months to develop a behaviour management plan for a person with a disability exhibiting challenging behaviours. Would it not be more appropriate to provide for an extended short-term approval period to be in place until the transition period for the implementation of the Carter report recommendations expires? Wasn’t the whole point of implementing recommendations from the Carter report designed to provide a platform that would deliver a more efficient disability services sector that provides care to people with disabilities exhibiting challenging behaviour? I am sure that that is what Justice Carter intended and I am concerned that it is being diminished in this regard. I thank the LNP members who made a contribution to this debate and made an effort to address both bills—the government bill and the private member’s bill—before the House during this cognate debate. Unfortunately, government members during the debate largely failed to address the private member’s bill put forward by the LNP opposition. I regret that—save for the Minister for Disability Services and Multicultural Affairs, who invented reasons to oppose the bill—Labor members could not be bothered to address this important issue regarding the safety and welfare of people with disabilities in Queensland. I want to reiterate what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Southern Downs, said yesterday about it being a great pity that the sanctimonious and sometimes self-serving calls for bipartisanship that are made by members of the opposite side are nowhere to be seen when it comes to supporting non-government bills in this place. I commend the Disability Services (Criminal History) Amendment Bill to the House. Hon. KL STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (Minister for Community Services and Housing and Minister for Women) (11.42 am), in reply: There is nothing more important than the safety of our children and the safety of vulnerable people with disabilities. I want to commend all speakers for their thoughtful contributions to the debate. Speakers on both sides of the House have thought about this issue a lot, have dug deep and have contributed well to this debate. I thank the member for Hinchinbrook for leading the opposition debate. I also wish the member for Burdekin well in her absence this week. I want to acknowledge the hard work of the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian in its work on this project and the work it does every day in Queensland protecting the interests of children. I also thank the officers of the Department of Communities who have played a strong support role to help the commission to get the bill to this stage and again for their day-to-day work in protecting the safety of children and people with disabilities all around this state. I thank the stakeholders—many community organisations—who took the time to respond to the consultation paper and members of the Queensland Compact, who provided significant input into the bill’s development. I thank those who choose to work with our most vulnerable on a day-to-day basis. These people, as many members have acknowledged, are involved in many very difficult situations around the state, particularly with people with significant disabilities. There are many others working day to day with children in sporting arrangements, in child-care arrangements and in all sorts of contexts, including foster care, who do a wonderful job. The member for Hinchinbrook has made a very genuine attempt to improve legislation around the safety of Queensland’s most vulnerable. I commend his efforts. In a spirit of bipartisanship, which he does not seem to be acknowledging here, we have certainly given due consideration to these genuine attempts. I have no doubt that he has the best intentions in what he has put forward in his private member’s bill. However, this bill has some very significant unintended consequences. It is not my job to ask him questions in this House, but there are certainly some issues and questions in my mind that I have as I have given consideration to his private member’s bill, as has the Minister for Disability Services. 554 Crim. History Screen. Leg. A’ment Bill; Dis. Serv. (Crim. History) A’ment Bill 25 Feb 2010

The opposition’s bill limits its definition of ‘carer’ to a person engaged by a service provider to care for another person who needs ongoing support because of disability. The yellow card process makes no such distinction regarding this matter and has a much wider coverage of ‘carer’. The opposition’s bill is directed to carers who may be engaged in funded disability services as well as unfunded services. But it is unclear whether this would also extend to private arrangements. One of the unintended consequences I have thought about is: would this—if adopted in the form put forward by the member— lead to a situation where family members who have arrangements within their own family for the care of people with disabilities be prohibited from caring in that private family arrangement? The Minister for Disability Services said she would re-examine the issue of the coverage of unfunded services in the forthcoming review of the Disability Services Act. Again, in the spirit of bipartisanship, we have extended an opportunity to the member for Hinchinbrook to contribute to that process when the act is reviewed. Unlike the message we are getting from the member that we are ignoring his bill, I want to clearly put on the record that he has put some very thoughtful considerations forward. There are significant unintended consequences though that need due consideration. I encourage him to put his considerations forward in the process of the review of the Disability Services Act. The opposition’s scope is also too broad in that it seeks to prohibit anyone who has committed an offence of violence from getting a yellow card if that offence has been committed in the seven years subsequent to their application. Let me make it very clear that all violent acts should be taken seriously and are, but context and the continuum of violence needs to be taken into account and is taken into account under our current system. Our Criminal Code provides for a range of offences of violence from bullying and spitting right through to more serious aggravated assaults and other offences. So, for instance, a young man who spits on a player on a football field or gets involved in some sort of altercation may be charged and go through a process which may in fact, under the proposition put forward by the member for Hinchinbrook, prohibit him from applying for a blue card or a yellow card for seven years. I again urge the member for Hinchinbrook to think through the detail and the unintended consequences that may arise from the proposition he has put forward in his private member’s bill. Our screening system in Queensland, as acknowledged by members of the opposition, is one of the most comprehensive of any jurisdiction. People are disqualified and excluded for a wide range of offences. I have just gone back through the schedule of disqualifications and automatic exclusions. They range from making an objectionable computer game and obtaining a minor for an objectionable computer game right through to more serious acts such as the display of prohibited publications or child abuse photographs and serious violent offences. We have extensive coverage in our schedule of disqualifying offences and exclusions. I urge the member to re-examine those, because we are very comprehensive in the range of offences covered. The Premier spoke this morning about the new and emerging and very disturbing and concerning use of the internet in very obscene ways. I was horrified to hear of those online tribute sites being hijacked and abused in this way. It is very disturbing. They are new and emerging offences that are being recognised in those areas. Our exclusions and the disqualifying offences we have cover many of those areas. One of the things we need to be mindful of into the future is the emerging offences and practices that occur. I say to the member that this does not just include acts of violence; there are other offensive behaviours that show bad character. We would not want these sorts of people working in such close relationships and in positions of trust with children or people with disabilities. We need to remain vigilant and keep watching the emerging trends and developments, but what the member suggested is too limiting. Again, I say that any act of violence—spitting, bullying, anything—should be taken seriously, but should it rule them out from applying for a blue card or a yellow card for seven years? In the debate, a number of members raised concerns about the restrictive practices. This falls within the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Disability Services, and she spoke comprehensively about those in her presentation during the debate. At this point, I want to affirm the assurances that she has given and certainly welcome any further discussion during the debate on the clauses. A number of members opposite also raised concerns regarding the level of funding given to the disability sector. Well, let me tell members the facts. In the last 11 years, the Queensland Labor government has increased state funding for disability services from $156.83 million in 1998-99 to $731.62 million in 2009-10. If you do the quick sums on that, you will find that is an increase of not 100 per cent, not 200 per cent, but 366 per cent. That is a 366 per cent growth in disability services funding in the duration of the Labor government. Who was in government in Queensland in 1997? Mr Robertson: I forget now. Ms STRUTHERS: You forget. Who was in government? The conservatives. So members opposite should not come in here feigning interest in supporting additional funding when the conservatives have a very dismal record on supporting disability services around this state. 25 Feb 2010 Crim. History Screen. Leg. A’ment Bill; Dis. Serv. (Crim. History) A’ment Bill 555

In addition to the mainstream funding that has been provided, this year we also provided $414 million to help support the sustainability of services because of the wage increase—a very important wage increase—that had been granted by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission for people working with vulnerable people, for people in the disability services area. That was a very welcome decision by the QIRC. What did we do? We provided a whopping $414 million to support their work and sustain their viability. In recognition of the potential impact of the introduction of a fee for yellow card applications, we have committed to increasing base funding to non-government organisations. That will amount to about $265,000 each year to help them adjust to that new fee. So I hope that puts to rest any concerns that members may have. We have certainly given consideration to the concerns raised in the consultation with the disability services area and we have made this very clear statement of support. To address the member for Gladstone’s concerns, I can say that volunteers will be exempt from paying this fee for both the blue card and the yellow card. No volunteers will need to pay for either card. The member for Hinchinbrook spoke about the cost of the blue card rising from $61.85 to $70. In fact, it is not a rise. I would like to point out that the current blue card fee of $61.85 equates to $30.93 for each of its two years of currency. Under the new proposals, the blue card fee will be $70 for three years at an annual rate of $23.33, which is a reduction of $7.60 on the current annual rate. This bill is good news for the people of Queensland and it strengthens safeguards that already exist for our children and for people with disabilities in the care of others. It will increase cohesion and consistency with the blue card, teacher registration and yellow card systems by aligning, as far as practical, the exclusionary framework of these systems. It will reduce the requirement for people to undergo duplicate criminal history checks. It will make it easier for people to transfer between different systems. It will extend the blue and yellow card renewal periods from two to three years. The member for Hinchinbrook asked why there is not one single screening system. I must admit that when I saw the size of the bill I also thought, ‘Why is this bill so big?’ It is big because there is comprehensive and complex work that needs to occur behind the scenes and this needs to be very thorough and robust, but the front end of the system will be much simpler for people. We have a very integrated system with the two cards. Moving to a one-card system is something that no other jurisdiction has been able to achieve, nor is it necessarily desirable given the complexity of the different contexts in which people work and the different offences that need to apply. For instance, it is probably very unsuitable to have someone who has committed an offence of fraud working with people with disabilities and managing their money, yet that offence may not necessarily rule them out of coaching a football team. So the context has to be taken into account and our system does that. The differences in risk elements are the reason the screening systems for different purposes exclude people on different criminal histories. A one-card or one-screening system for all would have to be organised to either lower the threshold for approvals to that of the system with the lowest requirements or lift it to the highest level and include anything that would exclude an individual from working in any one of the relevant areas. This would mean that people who pose no risk in certain contexts would be excluded from being able to work in others. The member for Hinchinbrook also expressed concerns about the coordination challenges in having a linked approach. Given the commission for children’s demonstrated capacity to develop and maintain a high-quality, effective and reliable screening system, I have every confidence that the commission will be able to do the same in coordinating this system. As opposition members have very clearly acknowledged, the blue card system is highly regarded in Queensland, Australia and overseas. Since its inception, over 3,500 high-risk individuals have been prevented from providing services to children. Of these, almost 1,900 people have been excluded from holding a blue card. Almost 1,500 people have withdrawn their application after being challenged on their criminal history. The system works well. Our system is the envy of many other jurisdictions. The system is working when it comes to identifying people with inappropriate criminal histories, and it shows the checks are a strong deterrent. The commission monitors the criminal histories of over 478,000 blue card holders. It also monitors organisations with management and blue card requirements to see how they are complying with regulations. Since its inception, nearly 350 people have had their blue cards suspended as a result of a change in their criminal history. It is on the basis of these strengths that the amendments are proposed, but we need to remember that the screening system is just one important feature of the process to keep children and people with disabilities safe. Organisations have a responsibility to implement a risk management strategy to address any particular risks that could exist in their environment. I make it very clear today that, whilst we have one of the best systems in the world, we cannot have a false sense of security or think of it as a panacea. We have to remain vigilant, and the message has to be out there in the community that we need to take our own responsibility for children, we need to take our own responsibility within our organisations, we need to have good practices and risk management strategies in place, and we require that in our legislation. All of us here have a responsibility to keep children and people with a disability safe. 556 Crim. History Screen. Leg. A’ment Bill; Dis. Serv. (Crim. History) A’ment Bill 25 Feb 2010

The children’s commission plays a very active role in education and community awareness. I was pleased to note that the member for Cook described in his presentation how well the commission gets out to remote Indigenous communities. A very important part of the work of the children’s commission is working in remote and regional parts of Queensland. So I welcome contributions from members. In Queensland we have a very effective system. This bill brings proposals that will make the system even more effective; it will avoid the duplication that we have witnessed in the past. But remember: all employers and all people involved in positions of trust in the care of children or people with disabilities have a responsibility to do everything they can to ensure that children and people with disabilities are safe. Members, we all have a role to play. I thank you all for your contributions. Question put—That the Criminal History Screening Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. Division: Question put—That the Disability Services (Criminal History) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. AYES, 36—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hopper, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Messenger, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt, Rickuss, Robinson, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Horan, Sorensen NOES, 47—Attwood, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Dick, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Johnstone, Jones, Kiernan, Kilburn, Lawlor, Lucas, Male, Moorhead, Mulherin, 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, Darling Resolved in the negative. Consideration in Detail Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clause 2— Ms STRUTHERS (12.08 pm): I move the following amendment— 1 Clause 2 (Commencement) Page 34, line 10— omit, insert— ‘(b) part 12.’. I table the explanatory notes to my amendment. Tabled paper: Explanatory notes to Ms Struthers’ amendments to be moved in consideration in detail to the Criminal History Screening Legislation Amendment Bill [1782]. This amendment provides that part 17, along with most other parts of the bill, will commence on proclamation to ensure implementation is staged appropriately. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 3 to 11, as read, agreed to. Clause 12— Mr CRIPPS (12.09 pm): Clause 12 amends section 97 of the Child Care Act 2002. From the outset I acknowledge that this bill is a very substantial bill and it does amend a large number of acts. A number of those acts are not within the portfolio of the Minister for Community Services and Housing and Minister for Women. I will certainly understand if she needs to seek some advice in relation to some of the questions I have regarding the amendments that are outside her portfolio. In relation to clause 12, which I mentioned amends section 97 of the Child Care Act 2002, the amendment provides for a situation whereby, if a carer in a licensed home based service asks the licensee of that service to apply for a prescribed notice or an exemption notice about an adult occupant, the licensee must do so. The clause provides for a penalty of 100 penalty units for failing to comply with such a request. My question to the minister is: will there be any grounds for refusal or appeal in the case of an unreasonable request? Can the minister provide any examples of when such a request would be considered to be unreasonable? Ms STRUTHERS: I thank the member for the question. The bill proposes to treat adult occupants in licensed family day care services as volunteers rather than as persons carrying on a regulated business. It will improve the notification process if an adult occupant’s blue card status changes. In practice, the licensee who is responsible for the care will be notified instead of the Office for Early Childhood Education and Care and the Department of Education and Training. 25 Feb 2010 Crim. History Screen. Leg. A’ment Bill; Dis. Serv. (Crim. History) A’ment Bill 557

There are a number of changes in this area of activity. The bill also proposes to mandate the requirement for the chief executive of the Department of Education and Training to provide written advice of all serious compliance action to the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian. My understanding is that in these sorts of instances where there might be questions or doubt, or someone is seeking to have clarification or review of a decision, they would put those concerns to the children’s commission and it would be considered by the children’s commission. Clause 12, as read, agreed to. Clauses 13 to 55, as read, agreed to. Clause 56— Mr CRIPPS (12.11 pm): Part 5 of the bill commencing with clause 56 amends the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000. I want to canvass with the minister the issue of how these amendments will affect the operation of the commission. Firstly, can she advise how much the budget for the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian has been increased or decreased over the last 12 months? Specifically, my question goes to how many community organisations will have members and volunteers who will no longer be required to hold blue cards because of changes to the definition of their responsibilities? Is it the case that only people whose responsibilities are concerned mainly or only with children will be required to have a blue card? Ms STRUTHERS: Again I thank the member for the question. This does propose some quite significant changes. In terms of his question about the budget, let me say that the children’s commission in Queensland is one of the best organisations in Queensland but it is also well supported by government. Its budget relative to others is very substantial. As an independent authority, the children’s commission is embarking on a scoping exercise as part of the process of introducing this bill and the changes proposed to identify more clearly who is in and who is out, who is affected and what that might mean in terms of cost. The bill makes no change to who needs a card other than to exempt teachers and police officers. In terms of budgetary implications, we expect there may be some savings through the reduced duplication of criminal screening processes. I certainly will be interested in the work that is done in this scoping exercise. Mr CRIPPS: I want to indicate in relation to the issue that I just raised that an instance was raised by, I think, the member for Bundaberg of an organisation where the volunteers involved may fall outside the definition of an individual requiring a blue card because their activities are not mainly or only related to children. They will therefore not require a blue card. I notice in answer to my previous question the minister indicated that there may be some savings made in terms of the administrative costs incurred by the commission in processing blue card applications perhaps because of this definition change. Can the minister advise whether she is aware of any projected savings following the passing of this bill? Ms STRUTHERS: I thank the member for the question. As a responsible minister I always ask about the money. I say, ‘Tell me about the money. Are there savings in this? If we are reducing duplication, how can we derive savings from this?’ I have certainly had a number of meetings with the children’s commissioner, but bear in mind that that is an independent commission and I cannot direct or control the commission. I have certainly asked the appropriate questions and sought advice on that. My understanding is that there are intended savings. We will aim to achieve savings through this process over the next few years. There will be costs initially in terms of some changes to information systems and the support that is needed to implement the proposals and the education and awareness activities that are needed. But there is no significant increase or decrease that is expected. This scoping exercise will better identify what sorts of changes might be likely. Clause 56, as read, agreed to. Clause 57, as read, agreed to. Clause 58— Ms STRUTHERS (12.16 pm): I move the following amendment— 2 Clause 58 (Replacement of pt 6 (Screening for regulated employment and regulated businesses)) Page 75, line 2, ‘notice.’— omit, insert— ‘notice; (d) persons about whom the person is notified under section 339.’. This amendment inserts a substantially similar subsection as currently contained in the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000 and clarifies that employers must have risk management strategies in relation to a person they have been notified has been the subject of a change in police information under section 339. Amendment agreed to. 558 Crim. History Screen. Leg. A’ment Bill; Dis. Serv. (Crim. History) A’ment Bill 25 Feb 2010

Mr CRIPPS: Clause 58 amends the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000. The clause relates to screening processes for regulated employment. My question relates to a point that was raised during the debate and referred to by the minister during her summing- up—that is, why a single card system could not be pursued with the implementation of this bill? I recognise that in relation to regulations dealing with the safety of children being supervised by individuals and the safety of people with disabilities being cared for by carers and the criminal history screening processes that are undertaken by a range of professions, including police, teachers and medical professionals, which are all covered by this bill, that there could be some significant differences between the required nature of the criminal history screening processes. Nevertheless, this bill proposes to attempt to standardise the stringency of the screening process whereby the screening processes for the two cards—the blue and yellow cards—and the screening processes for professions are accepted as being able to provide exemptions in other areas if individuals are undertaking work in those different areas. My question to the minister is: are the standards of screening consistent across the blue and yellow cards and the various professions that are affected by this bill? If we are going to provide for exemptions across different sectors which have different screening processes the only legitimate way that we could have the screening processes recognised across sectors is if there were consistent stringency levels in terms of the screening process. Is the minister satisfied that all of the screening processes that are contained in this bill for the various cards—the blue and yellow cards—and the professions affected are consistent and would underpin a satisfactory level of exemptions across those sectors? Ms STRUTHERS: Again, I thank the member for what is a very important question. I am satisfied that the systems are stringent and robust and are being better integrated and there is better communication across the systems. In fact, one of the things that I do not think many members in this House are aware of is that the children’s commission has an overnight monitoring system. Every day charge information and general criminal history information comes into the commission on blue card holders. So it knows within a very short period of time who has done something wrong that is serious that might impact on their eligibility for the blue card. I again say that I think it is one of the best systems across Australia and even across the world. The Queensland College of Teachers has its particular screening process which, again, is very robust. It has different requirements though in relation to suitability to teach criteria. Again in terms of the point the member is making as to why there is not one system or one card, there are very different criteria needed for the different contexts that people are working in. For example, a teacher may have some conditions on their registration affecting their suitability to teach, and that might be something like, as I have become aware of recently, where teachers go overseas. In order to teach again in Queensland, they have to have a criminal history check for the jurisdiction that they were in for that period of 12 months or two years or whatever. Until they provide that, there may be conditions on their registration process through the College of Teachers. We have to have a system that allows for the differences. But what we have achieved in Queensland and particularly through the proposals in this bill is, in a sense, the one system—one very integrated and comprehensive and robust system that acknowledges the different standards and elements needed in those particular contexts in which people work. Mr CRIPPS: The minister is satisfied, I take it from the answer she just gave to my question, with the robustness and the appropriateness of having different systems allowed to provide exemptions to people holding another card or going through a screening process involved with one of the professions. The next question obviously is if the minister is satisfied that that is the case, then would she please elaborate on or explain to the House how a single system or a single card system could not be introduced? We have a situation where various professions and the two cards—the blue and yellow cards—will be accepted. If you can pass the criminal history screening process for one of those, it will be accepted as an exemption for working in another sector should an individual embark on a career in a different sector. If that is the case—if all the systems will be cross-referenced with one another and will be accepted as a single legitimate standard—what is the reason that we cannot have a single card system for criminal history checks in the state of Queensland? Ms STRUTHERS: I guess the answer is that we can have a one-card system if we want a one- card system. But if we want a robust and comprehensive system, we have to take account of all of the different contexts in which people are working. The other consideration at the moment for us in Queensland is that we are part of a national environment. We are part of a national exchange of criminal information in relation to children. The recent COAG agreement in relation to the exchange of criminal information for screening people who are working in child related employment means that Australia will shortly have one of the best systems in the world of exchanging information across jurisdictions for people who are seeking to work in child related employment. 25 Feb 2010 Crim. History Screen. Leg. A’ment Bill; Dis. Serv. (Crim. History) A’ment Bill 559

There are very specific and stringent requirements around working with children, and there are different requirements around working with people with disabilities. As I think I said earlier, one of the offences, for instance, that may deem a person unsuitable to work with people with disabilities is if they have had their hand in the till somewhere or they have some sort of a fraud charge or money related charge against them. One of the biggest concerns I am hearing for seniors and for people with disabilities is some of the financial abuse that they are experiencing. Therefore, a system has to take account of those different environments. That may not rule them out of working with children, although there is some doubt cast over their character if that is the behaviour. So our system has to be able to take account of all these sorts of differences. What I am putting to the member is that in Queensland it is useful to think of our process as a very integrated system, but there is not just one card in it. I am not sure if that satisfies the member’s mind in relation to this issue. Clause 58, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 59 to 69, as read, agreed to. Clause 70— Mr CRIPPS (12.24 pm): Clause 70 amends the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000 to insert schedule 6 into the act. The schedule outlines the qualifying offences that may form the basis of investigative information deemed to be relevant to a criminal history check. Can the minister please advise why a number of the qualified offences listed in schedule 6 that will be caught by a criminal history check are based on the victim type? Is a sexual assault only to be considered under this act if it is perpetrated against a child or a person with a disability? Why is it not taken into consideration as reason for excluding an individual if it was a sexual assault against any other member of the community? Ms STRUTHERS: I might seek some advice in relation to the specific offences that the member has referred to, but in general terms those offences listed in schedule 6 range from internet based activities such as publication of material relating to children through to other very serious offences. Those publication offences are very serious offences as well, but it goes on to deal with very serious offences around sexual assault, rape and the like. I might just check in relation to the member’s specific question about the sexual assault issues. I thank the member for Hinchinbrook for his patience. I sought clarification because he has raised a very detailed issue about the offences and asked a very important question. In relation to offences against children, sometimes they are very difficult to prosecute. As the member would well know, it may be at times very hard to proceed with charges for offences against children. In relation to the matter he has raised, it is very important that, as we do in Queensland—and the bill provides further opportunity for this—we can seek investigative information from the police. So we do not just rely on charges and criminal history information available to us in a more general sense; we can actually seek a criminal history and information from the police. We can also go to the DPP and get information on prosecutions and get more detailed information where a charge may not have proceeded. So we are focused on making sure that we do not just rely on charges and convictions against children but we actually get more detailed information from the DPP. In relation to schedule 6 in terms of offences, it certainly is, as the member has acknowledged, focused on children. Mr CRIPPS: I want to follow up that question. If the minister has a copy of the bill she can turn to page 272. As I mentioned in my previous question, this relates to the qualifying offences that may be the basis of investigative information deemed to be relevant to a criminal history check when someone is going through a criminal history screening process. From my understanding of what the bill says on page 272, as part of the schedule that is proposed to be inserted into the act, the convictions for unlawful sodomy, procuring sexual acts by coercion, conspiracy to defile or incest may qualify as relevant information for the basis of an investigation in a criminal history check only if those acts were committed against a child or a person with an impairment of the mind. That is what I can see stated in the schedule. My point and my question is: how could it possibly be the case that those convictions would not be relevant to a criminal history screening check if they were committed by an individual going through a criminal history screening process but not perpetrated in the past against a child or a person with an impairment of the mind? How could they possibly not be relevant to the consideration of whether or not a person would be suitable to continue in employment of the care of a person with a disability or in regard to a child? I am happy to stand corrected in relation to this matter but, as I read the schedule, the qualification relating to the provisions of the bill would be limited to people with children or persons with an impairment of the mind. Ms STRUTHERS: I thank the member for the further detail in relation to the question. The children’s commission considers charges and convictions for any offence and investigative information is limited to offences committed against a child or a person with a disability if these matters have not proceeded to a charge. The member raised the issue of, for example, unlawful sodomy. Again, some of 560 Crim. History Screen. Leg. A’ment Bill; Dis. Serv. (Crim. History) A’ment Bill 25 Feb 2010 these areas have some subjective judgement in relation to them. For instance, for an offence committed before July 1997—unlawful sodomy—it was only if it was committed against a child or a person with an impairment of the mind. Again, I do not want to go into the bedrooms or whatever of Queensland people’s homes, but you need to take into account the context of some of these offences and contemporary environments—when the offences were committed, changes in the law and changes in attitude. Someone may have had an unlawful sodomy charge 20 years ago. Again, I do not want to be giving away too much information or go into too much detail about this sort of business, but let me say that some of those charges or convictions were committed many years ago in different moral environments. The commission needs to be in a position to take account of contemporary practice and contemporary approaches to these issues. Prior to July 1997, section 208 of the Criminal Code captured unnatural offences which were not necessarily committed against a child or a person with an impairment of the mind, that is, it could include consensual anal intercourse between adults. The new qualification has been included to ensure that persons convicted of a historical offence under section 208 of the Criminal Code are disqualified only if the offence was committed against a relevant client group, that is, a child or a person with an impairment of the mind. Mr CRIPPS: What about unlawful homicide? What about rape? What about attempt to commit rape, assault with intent to commit rape or sexual assaults? They are also offences listed in the schedule which limit the qualification to the circumstance where it is perpetrated against a person with a disability or a child as per this schedule. I take on board that there may be advances or changes to the law in respect of attitudes towards certain offences from time to time. I take on board the proposition that the minister is putting forward that there may be changes from time to time in relation to some of the offences that I listed during my first question regarding sodomy or other matters, but unlawful homicide? Surely attitudes in relation to that particular offence cannot change from time to time and surely in relation to these issues convictions of persons found guilty of the types of offences that I have listed, which are in the schedule, must be taken into consideration when someone is considering the suitability of a person who will provide care to a person with a disability or a child even if that particular conviction was not previously perpetrated against one of those two types of Queenslanders. Ms STRUTHERS: Let there be no doubt here that the schedule is very comprehensive and the list of disqualifying offences for the purposes of automatic exclusion is very clear. The offences that the member listed will provide automatic exclusion. So I do not want any doubt here. I was just explaining some of the changes and one of those was in relation to how sodomy is treated. But let me leave here no doubt about the fact that that schedule lists numerous offences—from making objectionable computer games and obtaining a minor for objectionable computer games through to those other offences that the member described. There is no doubt that within our legislation they are disqualifying offences for the purpose of automatic exclusion. Clause 70, as read, agreed to. Clauses 71 to 102, as read, agreed to. Clause 103— Ms STRUTHERS (12.36 pm): I move the following amendment— 3 Clause 103 (Replacement of s 90 (When person without current positive notice may be engaged)) (1) Page 308, line 17, after ‘persons’— insert— ‘other than volunteers’. (2) Page 309, line 2, ‘engagement.’— omit, insert— ‘engagement; and (d) under the proposed engagement, the person is to be engaged by the service provider other than as a volunteer.’. (3) Page 309, line 24, after ‘persons’— insert— ‘other than volunteers’. (4) Page 310, line 5, ‘engagement.’— omit, insert— ‘engagement; and (d) under the proposed engagement, the person is to be engaged by the service provider other than as a volunteer.’. 25 Feb 2010 Crim. History Screen. Leg. A’ment Bill; Dis. Serv. (Crim. History) A’ment Bill 561

(5) Page 310, line 27, after ‘persons’— insert— ‘other than volunteers’. (6) Page 310, line 31, after ‘provider’— insert— ‘other than as a volunteer’. (7) Page 311, line 20, ‘units.’.’— omit, insert— ‘units. ‘90C Starting engagement of volunteers ‘(1) A funded non-government service provider must not engage a volunteer at a service outlet of the service provider unless— (a) the volunteer has a current positive notice and the service provider has notified, in the approved form, the chief executive that the service provider is proposing to engage the volunteer at a service outlet of the service provider; or (b) the service provider has applied for a prescribed notice, or a further prescribed notice, about the volunteer. Maximum penalty— (a) for an individual guilty under chapter 2 of the Criminal Code of an offence or for section 206—50 penalty units; or (b) for a funded non-government service provider—250 penalty units. Note— See section 78(6) for particular volunteers who are not volunteers engaged by a non-government service provider. ‘(2) The approved form mentioned in subsection (1)(a) must include provision for— (a) identifying information about the volunteer; and (b) certification by the funded non-government service provider that the service provider has sighted documents, relating to proof of the volunteer’s identity, prescribed under a regulation.’.’. This amendment to clause 103 in relation to the Disability Services Act 2006 is to clarify that new sections 90, 90A and 90B do not apply to volunteers. This means that the minimum frequency test does not inadvertently apply to volunteers for three months during the staged commencement of the changes. Additionally, a new section 90C is inserted to clarify the circumstances for engaging a volunteer at a service outlet. This will occur during the staged implementation of the changes. Amendment agreed to. Clause 103, as amended, agreed to. Clause 104— Ms STRUTHERS (12.37 pm): I move the following amendment— 4 Clause 104 (Amendment of s 90 (Starting engagement of certain regular engaged persons)) (1) Page 311, line 22, after ‘persons’— insert— ‘other than volunteers’. (2) Page 311, lines 23 to 28— omit. This amendment amends clause 104 in relation to the Disability Services Act 2006 to omit certain amendments that are no longer required due to amendments made to section 90, which provide that the minimum frequency test does not apply to volunteers. Amendment agreed to. Clause 104, as amended, agreed to. Clause 105— Ms STRUTHERS (12.38 pm): I move the following amendment— 5 Clause 105 (Amendment of s 90A (Starting engagement of new engaged persons)) (1) Page 312, line 5, after ‘persons’— insert— ‘other than volunteers’. (2) Page 312, lines 6 to 11— omit. 562 Crim. History Screen. Leg. A’ment Bill; Dis. Serv. (Crim. History) A’ment Bill 25 Feb 2010

That amendment amends clause 105 in relation to the Disability Services Act 2006 to omit certain amendments which are no longer required due to amendments made to section 90A which provide that the minimum frequency test does not apply to volunteers. Amendment agreed to. Clause 105, as amended, agreed to. Clause 106— Ms STRUTHERS (12.38 pm): I move the following amendment— 6 Clause 106 (Amendment of s 90B (Continuing engagement of persons)) (1) Page 312, line 19, after ‘persons’— insert— ‘other than volunteers’. (2) Page 312, lines 20 to 25— omit. This amendment amends clause 106 in relation to the Disability Services Act 2006 to omit certain amendments which are no longer required due to amendments made to section 90B which provide that the minimum frequency test does not apply to volunteers. Amendment agreed to. Clause 106, as amended, agreed to. Clause 107— Ms STRUTHERS (12.39 pm): I move the following amendment— 7 Clause 107 (Insertion of new ss 90C and 90D) (1) Page 313, lines 6 to 8— omit, insert— ‘107 Replacement of s 90C (Starting engagement of volunteers) Section 90C— omit, insert—’. (2) Page 314, lines 6 to 24— omit, insert— ‘90D Currency of prescribed notice for volunteer continuing engagement ‘(1) This section applies if— (a) a volunteer engaged by a funded non-government service provider at a service outlet of the service provider has a positive notice (the previous notice); and (b) the service provider applied for a further prescribed notice or an exemption notice about the volunteer at least 30 days before the previous notice expires; and (c) the application has not been decided. ‘(2) Despite section 89(2), the previous notice remains current from the day it would otherwise end under that subsection until the application is decided or withdrawn unless the previous notice is earlier cancelled under division 6. Note— See, however, section 104 for the effect of a suspension of a positive notice.’.’. This amendment amends clause 107 in relation to the Disability Services Act 2006. To clarify, this section will replace section 90C and provide under section 90D that a service provider may continue to engage a volunteer whose yellow card has expired provided they have put in a renewal application or exemption notice within 30 days of the expiry date. Amendment agreed to. Clause 107, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 108 to 155, as read, agreed to. Clause 156— Ms STRUTHERS (12.40 pm): I move the following amendment— 8 Clause 156 (Insertion of new pt 16, div 5) (1) Page 393, line 5, ‘Subject to subsection (3), this’— omit, insert— ‘This’. (2) Page 393, lines 10 to 17— omit. 25 Feb 2010 Crim. History Screen. Leg. A’ment Bill; Dis. Serv. (Crim. History) A’ment Bill 563

(3) Page 399, line 8, ‘subdivision 3 commenced’— omit, insert— ‘the commencement’. (4) Page 400, line 6, ‘subdivision 3 commenced’— omit, insert— ‘the commencement’. (5) Page 402, after line 25— insert— ‘278A Currency of existing prescribed notices ‘(1) A positive notice in force at the commencement remains current for 2 years after it was issued under the unamended Act, unless it is earlier cancelled under part 10, division 6. ‘(2) Subsection (1) applies despite section 89(2).’. (6) Page 406, lines 8 to 21— omit, insert— ‘(1) This section applies if— (a) immediately before the commencement, a person was engaged by a funded non-government service provider at a service outlet of the service provider as a volunteer; and (b) at the commencement— (i) the person does not have a current positive notice; and (ii) there is a current prescribed notice application about the person. ‘(2) The funded non-government service provider— (a) may continue to engage the person in the regulated engagement even though the person does not have a current positive notice; and (b) does not commit an offence against section 90C for the continued engagement. ‘(3) Subsection (2) applies until the earlier of the following— (a) 12 months after the commencement; (b) the funded non-government service provider is given a notice by the chief executive that a negative notice has been issued to the person or the application is withdrawn.’. This amendment amends clause 156 in relation to the Disability Services Act 2006 to clarify that the proposed change in the renewal period from two to three years commences in stage 2. The amendment removes the new section 262(3), recasts section 263 as section 278A and amends section 273(5) and 275(3) to provide that the three-year renewal period applies only to those yellow cards issued after stage 2 commencement. Amendment agreed to. Clause 156, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 157 to 174, as read, agreed to. Clause 175— Ms STRUTHERS (12.41 pm): I move the following amendment— 9 Clause 175 (Amendment of s 15 (Criminal history check etc.)) Page 438, lines 28 to 31— omit, insert— ‘(ii) has not, under section 15D, been advised that the college may need to have regard to the matters mentioned in section 11(1) for deciding whether the applicant is suitable to teach; and’. This amendment amends clause 175 in relation to the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 due to an inaccurate reference in relation to section 15D. Amendment agreed to. Clause 175, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 176 to 181, as read, agreed to. Clause 182— Ms STRUTHERS (12.42 pm): I move the following amendment— 10 Clause 182 (Amendment of s 57 (Effect of appeal on cancellation)) Page 446, line 6— omit, insert— ‘(2) Section 57(3), from ‘or an order’ to ‘(iii)’—’. This amendment amends clause 182 in relation to the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 to make a typographical correction. Amendment agreed to. Clause 182, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 183 to 199, as read, agreed to. 564 Crim. History Screen. Leg. A’ment Bill; Dis. Serv. (Crim. History) A’ment Bill 25 Feb 2010

Clause 200— Ms STRUTHERS (12.43 pm): I move the following amendment— 11 Clause 200 (Insertion of new ch 12, pt 11) Page 463, lines 22 to 24— omit, insert— ‘from the commencement applies in relation to the request.’. This amendment amends clause 200 in relation to the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 to clarify a transitional arrangement in relation to requests made before commencement for obtaining particular information from the Police Commissioner about particular persons. Amendment agreed to. Clause 200, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 201 and 202, as read, agreed to. Clause 203— Ms STRUTHERS (12.44 pm): I move the following amendment— 12 Clause 203 (Amendment of s 93AA (Unauthorised possession of, or dealing in, s 93A criminal statements)) (1) Page 468, lines 23 to 27— omit, insert— ‘(2C) A person does not commit an offence against subsection (1)(b) if the person supplies, or offers to supply, a written summary of a section 93A transcript that is in the person’s possession under subsection (2B)— (a) to a relevant CCYPCG applicant; and (b) for a legitimate purpose directly related to the making of a CCYPCG employment-screening decision.’. (2) Page 469, lines 1 to 6— omit, insert— ‘(b) the copying is done for the purpose of making a CCYPCG employment-screening decision. ‘(2E) A relevant CCYPCG applicant— (a) does not commit an offence against subsection (1)(a) by possessing a written summary of a section 93A transcript, if the summary— (i) was given to the applicant under subsection (2C); and (ii) is in the applicant’s possession, at the relevant time, for a legitimate purpose directly related to the making of a CCYPCG employment-screening decision; and (b) does not commit an offence against subsection (1)(b) if the applicant supplies, or offers to supply, a written summary of a section 93A transcript that is in the applicant’s possession under paragraph (a), or a copy of the summary— (i) to an Australian lawyer; and (ii) for the purpose of obtaining legal advice directly related to the making of a CCYPCG employment-screening decision; and (c) does not commit an offence against subsection (1)(c) if— (i) the applicant copies, or permits a person to copy, a written summary of a section 93A transcript that is in the applicant’s possession under paragraph (a); and (ii) the copying is done so that a copy of the summary can be given to an Australian lawyer for the purpose of obtaining legal advice directly related to the making of a CCYPCG employment- screening decision. ‘(2F) An Australian lawyer does not commit an offence against subsection (1)(a) by possessing a written summary of a section 93A transcript, or a copy of a written summary of a section 93A transcript, if the summary or copy— (a) was given to the lawyer under subsection (2E) by a relevant CCYPCG applicant; and (b) is in the lawyer’s possession, at the relevant time, for the purpose of providing legal advice directly related to the making of a CCYPCG employment-screening decision about the applicant.’. ‘(3) Section 93AA(3)— insert— ‘Australian lawyer has the meaning given by the Legal Profession Act 2007. CCYPCG Act means the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000.’. This amendment amends clause 203 in relation to the Evidence Act 1977 to clarify that a CCYPCG applicant or their lawyer will not be subject to offence provisions when a summary of a section 93A transcript has been provided in relation to the making of an employment screening decision. Amendment agreed to. Clause 203, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 204 to 213, as read, agreed to. 25 Feb 2010 Crim. History Screen. Leg. A’ment Bill; Dis. Serv. (Crim. History) A’ment Bill 565

Clause 214— Mr CRIPPS (12.45 pm): Clause 214 amends the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000. This amendment relates to the proposed extension of short-term approval time frames for the use of restrictive practices for people with disabilities exhibiting challenging behaviours from three months to six months. Can the minister advise the House of the reason for the extension of the time frame from three to six months? In particular, can the minister please advise if the extension being provided for is on the request of non-government service providers and what reason are these service providers citing as the reason for the request for the extension? Ms STRUTHERS: I thank the member for the question and commend his genuine interest in these issues. He spoke very well about these in his contribution earlier. As the member has acknowledged, I am speaking in a portfolio area that is not my responsibility, but my understanding from the minister for disability services and through the material I have received through the consultation on this bill and other contacts I have made is that service providers have asked for these changes. Service providers in very difficult environments with people with very challenging behaviours have asked for this extension to those times. At times it may be necessary for a disability service provider to respond to some kind of adverse event. As the member has acknowledged from his visits to services, some people need physical or chemical restraint. They are very difficult environments in which to work. As Bill Carter’s report and the work of other people has shown, people have to be treated with great dignity and respect, but it must be acknowledged that the safety of the service providers and others around them is paramount. The short-term approval process would allow Disability Services to use the restrictive practice for a short period until a proper assessment and a plan for the adult can be made and approval obtained under the full scheme. Experience in implementing the restrictive practice over the past 18 months has shown that it can take service providers longer than the three months to do an assessment of the individual. Many disciplines, including OTs, mental health practitioners, psychiatrists and a range of others are sometimes involved in these sorts of assessments and decisions. They need to develop a plan and obtain the authorisation under the full scheme. The proposed amendment is to extend the maximum period for these short-term approvals from up to three months to up to six months. It may not take six months in some instances, but this is to give people that leeway that they have asked for. Mr CRIPPS: The minister is certainly right; I did refer to these matters when I was making my second reading contribution and when I was summing up the cognate debate in relation to my bill. I did certainly express some sympathy and some concern for the circumstances of non-government organisations in relation to their capacity to implement Carter report recommendations within their organisation. I expressed those concerns because I do not believe that the government has provided sufficient financial support for them to implement some of these recommendations. Some of them are quite costly to implement. Unfortunately, I am led to believe that some of these non-government organisations have found it very difficult to implement the Carter report recommendations. I can see why they may require extensions for the maximum period for a behaviour management plan to be developed for a particular client who uses their services who exhibits challenging behaviours. In my first question I asked the minister whether the requests had been accepted by the government from non-government service providers, because that is where my particular concern lies— whether or not the requests for the extension of the time from three to six months was from non- government service providers. So I ask the minister to elaborate on that matter in her reply to this question. But I also ask the minister to please provide advice to the House on whether any government service providers have reported an inability to develop a behaviour management plan for an individual with a disability exhibiting challenging behaviour within the existing three-month time frame? Ms STRUTHERS: Again, I thank the member for the question. Bill Carter and his team investigated these issues very extensively. In acknowledgement of the need for change within service provision, the government did provide a budget allocation of $2 million specifically for some of those supports around the restrictive practices recommendations. But I say that in the context of what I said earlier. Disability services in Queensland over the last 11 years have received not a 100 per cent increase, not a 200 per cent increase, but a 333 per cent increase in funding under this Labor government. So, from when the conservatives were in government in 1997, we have upped the ante. We have acknowledged the important work and the unmet needs. The unmet needs campaign run over the past decade or more in Queensland by non-government and other service providers getting together to call for more support—parents, carers and others have been calling for more support—has been very successful. The government has heeded that call with a 333 per cent growth in disability services funding over that period. The member has raised a very important issue of whether services will be supported in this and have services asked for this extension. The answer is yes. I have just been handed a note. I have misled the parliament. It is not a 333 per cent increase; it is a 366 per cent increase and rising! I apologise. I am very sorry about that. I do not mean to make light of it. It is a very important need in our community. The sign of a humane and compassionate community is how well we look after our most vulnerable, and that is something we as a Labor government have been absolutely committed to. 566 Crim. History Screen. Leg. A’ment Bill; Dis. Serv. (Crim. History) A’ment Bill 25 Feb 2010

Specifically in relation to the member’s question about additional support, yes, there was a $2 million budget allocation specifically around the restrictive practices initiatives, as non-government service providers needed that support. In relation to the member’s question about whether government providers have asked for that assistance as well, I need to get some advice on that. My understanding is that it was primarily the non-government sector services—no, it was both. Clause 214, as read, agreed to. Clauses 215 to 228, as read, agreed to. Clause 229— Mr CRIPPS (12.52 pm): Clause 229 of the bill amends section 156 of the Public Service Act 2008. This clause proposes to redefine child related duties for Public Service employees. Can the minister please advise whether the definition of roles mainly or only concerning children will decrease the number of roles within the Public Service requiring blue cards or criminal history checks? Can the minister please provide any examples of roles in the Public Service that will no longer require a blue card or a criminal history check as a result of this definition change? Ms STRUTHERS: I thank the member for the question in relation to public servants. As he knows, some of the duplication has been that the Public Service Act provides for some screening of particular workers. Some of those workers in the front line require a blue card. Others who are not in front-line services do not require a blue card. That is my understanding. In relation to the member’s question about public servants, there will be some changes. I seek clarification from the staff of the commission in relation to that matter for the member. My understanding is that public servants have previously been exempt in certain circumstances. We are now wrapping them all in. Child safety officers, for example, will now be screened. Previously they were screened under the Public Service Act; they will now be screened under the blue card provisions. Mr CRIPPS: Just to clarify the minister’s answer, in relation to my question where I asked whether there will be any decrease in the number of roles in the Public Service that will require a blue card or a criminal history check, the minister indicated that there will be no decrease in the number of public servants who will be required to hold a blue card or undergo a criminal history check as a result of clause 229? Ms STRUTHERS: My understanding is that there will be no difference. Clause 229, as read, agreed to. Clauses 230 to 248, as read, agreed to. Schedules 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Third Reading Hon. KL STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (Minister for Community Services and Housing and Minister for Women) (12.56 pm): I move— That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Question put—That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time. Long Title Hon. KL STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (Minister for Community Services and Housing and Minister for Women) (12.57 pm): I move— That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (12.58 pm): I take this opportunity to recognise that the briefing we received from the staff was done at short notice, and the information that was provided was provided as quickly and as assiduously as possible, and for that I acknowledge the staff who did a good job in liaising with me at very short notice. As I indicated earlier, the member for Burdekin, who would otherwise be carrying this bill in the House on behalf of the opposition, has been unwell. I have been supported by the ministerial and departmental staff advising the minister to ensure that I have been able to take this bill through the House over the last few days. I would also like to recognise that my staff in the opposition office have also had to work fairly hard in relation to the change on the Notice Paper for this bill to come forward. I would like to thank all involved. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Ryan): I think all members join with you, member for Hinchinbrook. Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Sitting suspended from 12.59 pm to 2.30 pm. 25 Feb 2010 Privilege 567

PRIVILEGE

Alleged Deliberate Misleading of the House by a Minister Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (2.30 pm): Mr Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege suddenly arising. This morning in question time the Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading made an allegation that I had amended applications from constituents for congratulatory letters from the Premier in such a way as to remove the requirements for letters to be sent by the Prime Minister and the Premier. The obvious implication made by the member was that I was doing this for partisan political purposes and was engaged in shonky practices. I note that the minister failed to provide any evidence whatsoever in support of his misleading allegation. I completely refute the scurrilous and misleading statements made by the minister. At no stage have I or my office in any way interfered with the normal and proper process established for requesting letters of congratulation. I table for the public record copies of all applications for letters of congratulation processed by my office. Tabled paper: Copies of a collection of requests for a congratulatory letter or a congratulatory message [1783]. In light of this, Mr Speaker, I will be writing to you requesting that you refer the matter of the minister’s conduct to the Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. Alleged Deliberate Misleading of the House by a Minister Mr BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (2.31 pm): Mr Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege suddenly arising. The Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading this morning, by accusing me of tampering with congratulatory message documents, has deliberately misled this House— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not think you can say that at this point. That would be your allegation. Mr BLEIJIE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading this morning, by accusing me of tampering with congratulatory messages, may have deliberately misled the House, and I must set the record straight and categorically deny any allegations the minister has attempted to throw at me. My constituent, Mr Trevor Hockins, met with my electorate officer on or about 16 February 2010. In that meeting Mr Hockins advised my electorate officer that he would like to request a belated congratulatory message for his parents’ 60th wedding anniversary. The form was completed and Mr Hockins requested that he would only like letters to be sent from Her Majesty the Queen and Her Excellency the Governor-General. My electorate officer then advised Mr Hockins that general protocol would be to receive the letters from everyone but if that was his wish he could include a notation at the bottom of the form to this effect. This was completed. I table a copy of the request for congratulatory messages from my office. Tabled paper: Copy of a request for a congratulatory message for Bryan and Edna Hockins’ 60th wedding anniversary [1784]. Members will note that the form has been completed correctly, that it was authorised by my electorate officer and that a note saying Mr Hockins wanted letters from only the Governor-General and the Queen was included on the bottom in handwriting. What the minister failed to tell the House was that there was nothing secret about this request. There was nothing sinister about this request. There was no cover-up by my office. In fact, I would draw the minister’s attention to the facsimile transmission from my office. I table that document. Tabled paper: Copy of a fax communication result report for a request for a congratulatory message for Bryan and Edna Hockins’ 60th wedding anniversary [1785]. I point out to the minister that my office sent the request to the Awards and National Symbols Branch of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet protocol office and the Office of the Governor of Queensland. This does not sound like someone trying to cover up. Today I have spoken to my constituent, Mr Hockins, and he has advised me that his instructions to my electorate officer were as I have set out. He went one step further, to advise me that he phoned the minister’s office this morning to place on record the facts of the situation and the minister’s staffer advised Mr Hockins that she would pass the message on to the minister. Further, Mr Hockins advised me that he has spoken to his parents today and they have not received a phone call from any department seeking feedback from them about this issue. There is no cover-up; there is no misrepresentation. All we have here is a minister of the Crown who cannot stand in this place and speak for three minutes on his portfolio. In light of the comments made by the minister which were recorded in Hansard, I inform the House that it may be the case that the Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading has misled the House to an extent worthy of investigation by the Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. I will be writing to you, Mr Speaker, to this effect. Mr SPEAKER: You will both write to me under standing order 269. 568 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 25 Feb 2010

TRANSPORT (RAIL SAFETY) BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 9 February (see p. 58), on motion of Ms Nolan— That the bill be now read a second time. Ms SIMPSON (Maroochydore—LNP) (2.34 pm): The future of our transport network depends on having a safe and reliable rail and road network. The legislation before the House, the Transport (Rail Safety) Bill, pertains to rail safety. Efficiency without safety is false economy, but rail systems without continual improvement threaten not only safety standards but also competitiveness. Thus, a regulatory framework should not only police the standards of safety but also support continual improvement which allows both of these objectives to be fulfilled in their rightful order and balance. Queensland has not had stand-alone rail safety legislation. It has had a legislative framework but not dedicated legislation. The legislation before the House will allow us to go beyond what was a mutual recognition framework to a national uniformity framework. The purpose of this bill is to provide rail safety legislation that will form part of a system of nationally consistent rail safety laws. The bill sets out legal duties and operating requirements that are to be applied on a nationally consistent basis to all parties responsible for rail safety. It is intended to underpin future national regulations as well as compliance codes and guidelines. This has been described as a co-regulatory approach to rail safety. There has been a cooperative approach to rail safety across boundaries but, because of the lack of national uniform legislation, it has not always been consistently applied. This bill will be built on the current and ongoing reform agenda which is moving towards a single national rail regulator. I acknowledge today the announcement that Queensland will be the base for the heavy trucking industry safety regulator. We know that a similar national rail regulator will also be instituted eventually under national legislation. The location of that regulator is still to be advised and formulated. Ms Nolan: I think it’s going to be South Australia. Ms SIMPSON: Thank you, Minister. While there is a place for strong state rights—that is, a brake and a check of accountability on the power of a centralist government—there is a strong case for uniformity and coordination of services for the public interest in the shifting of goods, people and ownership of operations across state boundaries. While historically the rail networks of Australia have reflected the independent nature of the states—with different gauges, laws and practices governing their operations—this move towards a regulatory framework which is consistent across Australia is a natural progression and one that is welcome. I support the principle of these nationally consistent laws, although I still support the right of continual improvement that allows for the states, where it is appropriate, to respond legislatively for their unique circumstances and with flexibility. I think it has been recognised by a number of state jurisdictions that they still have some unique needs, and that has been reflected in a differing approach on some issues to the legislation before these parliaments. But, broadly, the national uniform legislation has been the platform that has been put towards these parliaments. What we see in this legislation is based upon a model bill which was developed in conjunction with representatives of all jurisdictions, the rail industry and rail unions and which receives legal effect when reproduced in each jurisdiction’s legislation. The National Transport Commission, the NTC, developed a national model Rail Safety Bill in 2006 and national model Rail Safety Regulations. This bill will enact the regime which was initially promoted and has since been subject to negotiation through these various jurisdictions, and it adopts the intent and embraces the principles of national consistency. A revised deadline of December 2008 was set by the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, for implementing these agreed reforms in a nationally consistent and coordinated way. As the House has been advised, we have seen these bills come forward in Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania. Currently, the bill has been put to Western Australia and the Northern Territory. We support the principle of these nationally consistent laws. I do know, however, that a number of issues have been raised in the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee report, and I will refer to those later in the consideration in detail stage. One of the disadvantages of nationally consistent legislation is that sometimes principles are put forward in these formats which are not always consistent with individual state drafting rules and considerations. Australia has some of the safest rail systems in the world. However, as this state knows, when an accident occurs there is potential for great injury and death. Tragically we have seen in recent years examples in Queensland where there have been rail accidents, particularly at level crossings, which have ended in tragedy. This parliament has seen reports in regard to those incidents and recommendations put forward to address these matters. One of the most pertinent points at this time is the issue of level crossings—not only the regulatory framework and how that is addressed but also the physical infrastructure that is in place. 25 Feb 2010 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 569

I acknowledge that money has been allocated to upgrade a number of level crossings to improve the visibility of those crossings, to enhance the warning systems around those crossings and in some instances to add boom gates. But there is still a very real issue of the sheer number of level crossings, particularly across the National Highway but also on many other roads, be they local or state government roads or private access roads. This legislation also seeks to regulate the interface between the rail operations—the physical infrastructure—and neighbouring roads. As the minister acknowledged in her second reading speech and as is contained in this legislation, level crossing accidents pose the biggest risk to safe rail operations. With the size of the road network that we have in Queensland, that is a continual issue. There is no doubt that more needs to be done regarding the physical infrastructure around that road interface, but this regulatory framework for the first time will require state and local governments and private road owners to enter into agreements with rail transport operators with regard to how they will together manage the level crossing safely. This is an issue on which I am seeking the minister’s feedback. While we agree with the principle put forward regarding the matrix of risk and how this is to be managed, the reality is that there are very disproportionate relationships between some of the parties and how they are able to negotiate those agreements. One of the concerns with the size of the rail network in Queensland is that there are a lot of small property owners or individuals who may find that their only access or the key access to their properties is across rail lines. Historically, some of those relationships have been managed well in regard to Queensland Rail. There are other circumstances of which my colleagues have made me aware where there have been very difficult relationships with individual landowners and even threats of having that access removed. First and foremost there must be safety, but there needs to be recognition that, in negotiating these agreements with some of the larger rail operators—and certainly as there is a move towards more private operators as a result of the sale of assets and those who have third-party access to the existing rail network—some individual landowners may find it very difficult to not have an unreasonable shifting of risk to themselves. I seek the minister’s assurance that the government will maintain its interest in ensuring that there is a fair balance of power, that people do not have risk shifted to them that is unfair and unwarranted, and that they are in a place to fairly negotiate. I think this issue of fair access to people’s property is very pertinent. In today’s paper there is another story in regard to a new private rail line. It is a reality that people will be seeking to build rail lines and there will be people who will be seeking to buy rail lines from the government in the upcoming asset sale, but this creates a different relationship. Historically it has been through QR and the government for people to negotiate fair access and manage the risks around these crossings. We will now have a situation where many people may find themselves negotiating with a major corporation and will have some concerns about whether they will be able to maintain fair and safe access to their properties. I thank the minister for the briefing notes put forward by the minister’s office and department. I note that some answers to questions which we raised from the briefing came through late this morning. The issue of the interface was one of the matters that we raised. There was some further explanation in those notes in regard to the rail safety regulator, but I ask for the minister’s assurance once again. Given that the rail safety regulator is a position which will be removed from the state’s jurisdiction to become a national regulator, there is still a need for the state to maintain the public interest and ensure that those who are perhaps in a disadvantaged position and who have to negotiate have fair access to government assistance. I seek the minister’s assurance in that regard. This opens up another arena as well, and that is the tourist and heritage lines. I acknowledge that this is also specifically mentioned in the minister’s second reading speech. In the briefings I have been assured there has been consultation with a number of bodies which are providing rail service in the tourism and heritage arena. These bodies are staffed mainly by volunteers, some with professional backgrounds and many who have the intention of doing the right thing and safely operating their rail lines but not necessarily with the resources of government or corporations. I note there have been verbal assurances that assistance will continue to be provided to help them comply with this new regulatory framework. I also seek the minister’s assurance today in regard to education and assistance for these bodies. Yes, we need good regulation to keep people safe, but it can be quite onerous for the volunteers who operate these bodies. To do it on their own is quite a burden. I seek the minister’s assurance that there will be assistance to help these bodies meet their legal requirements, that those requirements are measured in accordance with the risk that people carry, and that they are able to keep doing their good work in providing another very rich experience of rail travel but one that is based upon tourism and heritage. As I have mentioned, there are a number of rail crossings across the state. Some have physical barriers. Some are separated with flyovers. Some have boom gates and others do not. I want to address a couple of examples of crossings that have been of continuing concern. This legislation is about sharing the risks between the operators and parties involved in this infrastructure. However, there is still an onus on government to ensure there is a program to physically improve that infrastructure, 570 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 25 Feb 2010 particularly where there is an interface with traffic and where there is a high risk to the public and those who are driving our trains and working on the tracks. Still of great concern is the situation with Telegraph Road. The fact is that the urban land development area of Fitzgibbon is in this area at this intersection, and there is already a tremendous amount of pressure for an upgrade at this intersection. We have seen tremendous traffic congestion as well as the dangerous situation of people becoming frustrated and trying to dangerously dart through level crossings. There is never any excuse for people breaking the law and risking their lives and the lives of others to get around boom gates. However, this is an example of a level crossing whose time has passed. It needs to be addressed. There needs to be a program to have traffic fly over and not be stopped at this level crossing. The fact that there is a major development area proposed that will pour more traffic into this area will only compound the problem. It is one thing for the government to say that it has population targets, but it has to meet its responsibility for the infrastructure to address this issue. I seek the minister’s advice today as to when this critical piece of infrastructure will be addressed at this location. Another area of concern is Robinson Road. Once again, this is another example of an area that is not only a frustration for motorists but also there are real safety concerns when it comes to the amount of traffic going over this rail level crossing. I understand that the Brisbane City Council is willing to fund 50 per cent of the upgrade. Traditionally, that has not always been the proportion proposed. This is a case where the council has done a lot of the planning work and has wanted to progress this critical piece of infrastructure. It is time for the state government to step up to the plate and embrace the fact that there would be bipartisan support for this proposal if the government would come on board and do its part. It is all very well to say that there is going to be a sharing of risk and responsibility under this regulatory framework but if the state government does not do its job and put the infrastructure in place then the regulation is just a piece of paper. We need the hard infrastructure. We need to have programs to ensure that there are continual improvements in the infrastructure, not just continual improvements made by the rail workers operating these systems. I seek the minister’s commitment and assurance that money will be put into that program—and not just with regard to the particular examples I have given but others across the network that pose a risk to public safety. It is probably more good luck than good management that there have not been more accidents at a number of these places. The fact is that now not only is people’s safety at risk but the efficiency of the network is at risk. People are in conflict with boom gates in these highly congested areas and this cannot be tolerated any more. Accidents and delays around these pieces of infrastructure are having an impact beyond just that of people’s personal safety. It is impacting on the broader community’s ability to go to and from work. Increasingly, we are seeing delays across the network because of these kinds of failures and conflicts at rail level crossings. I acknowledge that there has been money put aside for building gantries at bridges. This addresses one of the issues which has impacted on rail safety and rail performance time wise. More needs to be done with regard to the physical improvements to these level crossings so that conflict is lessened. I want to also address a number of recommendations that were put forward by the federal House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government in its report tabled on 22 June 2009 titled Level Crossing Safety. This inquiry came out of a previous report into train illumination. It was to look at a broad range of possibilities to improve rail safety. I would be interested in the minister’s response to a number of these recommendations. I know that the state has been moving towards putting speed cameras on level crossings to improve safety. There are other propositions in this report, some of which have been trialled in some areas. It is still the case of what the future program of improvements will be. Some of the recommendations from that report were: consistent penalties should exist across jurisdictions; 80 kilometre per hour speed limits at level crossings located on roads which currently have higher speed limits; issues related to the visibility of locomotives; research regarding auxiliary lighting on trains; further trials of passive rumble strips at selected level crossings across the country; the trial of active rumble strips; research into intelligent transport systems; research into the feasibility of a cut-in warning system which would warn motor vehicle drivers of oncoming trains as they approach a level crossing; a national database which aggregates data from level crossing crashes and fatalities in all Australians states and territories; and a revised national railways safety strategy as part of the new national transport policy. There are a number of measures proposed such as speed limits at level crossings and research into intelligent transport systems. The cut-in warning system is one proposition that has been put to me by some manufacturers in this state. I understand there are others in Australia of this view. There are some overseas jurisdictions who have implemented this technology. I seek the minister’s feedback as to what investigations this government and the department are undertaking with regard to some of that new technology. 25 Feb 2010 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 571

One of those pieces of technology that I understand has been proposed but is yet to be trialled in Queensland is the cut-in warning system. There is an emitter on trains that alerts technology in vehicles. That technology would have to be fitted in vehicles. I understand there has been a call for a trial of this so that consideration can be given as to whether this could be of benefit not only at rail level crossings but also to alert people to emergency vehicles. Today with a lot of people driving with their iPods on or their radios on there is a lot of concern about a lack of driver awareness and the possibility that technology such as this can cut through that. I understand that there are overseas jurisdictions that have this. Without this being trialled we cannot rubber stamp it. It needs to be assessed to see its cost-effectiveness. I seek the minister’s feedback as to what technologies have been considered. Another important change coming through that will not only impact on rail regulation but also impact on other government legislation is workplace health and safety changes. There has just been a High Court case with regard to the reverse onus of proof involving workplace health and safety. That was the Kirk case. That has implications across many jurisdictions. Many would say that it is about time there was a fair regime and that the balance was right—that is, where people are liable and responsible for their actions they should certainly face the full weight of the law if they do wrong. But there is a danger in going into the territory of reverse onus of proof. With the workplace health and safety laws that has been the subject of a recent legal case. I seek the minister’s advice with regard to changes to workplace health and safety provisions in this legislation and how that particular court ruling will be applied. What will the new provisions with regard to workplace health and safety in this legislation mean in terms of a change to current practices? One of the other issues with regard to the implementation of standards relates to alcohol and drugs. The explanatory notes explain what will occur with regard to an investigation. I seek the minister’s advice as to what is proposed with regard to the standards for testing. Will there be mandatory random alcohol and drugs testing, particularly if people are operating heavy equipment or trains? This is a question that has to be asked. We like to think that everybody is doing the right thing. These regulations are here to ensure that the public is safe and that other workers operating around these facilities are safe. I seek the minister’s advice as to whether there will be mandatory random testing for those who are operating trains and other heavy equipment or those in a position to effect public safety. As I have mentioned, this legislation is based on a national model of legislation. But there have been variations to the legislation in other jurisdictions to meet certain local requirements. I would also seek the minister’s advice as to what the variations are within this piece of legislation to the model bill and the reasons for those variations and how they will still maintain a platform of coordination across jurisdictions? Controversially, the state is facing the sale of a number of its assets. There are already third party operators upon the tracks in Queensland. But this government is also proposing to sell below rail. That has obviously raised concerns with us about a lack of prudence with regard to the state budget but also future operations. This legislation is theoretically supposed to impact on all owners and operators in an equal way. We are still yet to see the regulations. We are yet to see the list of guidelines that will operate under this legislation. We are still yet to see how the sale of Queensland assets is going to manifest in a real way. First and foremost, safety needs to be upheld. First and foremost, the public interest needs to be upheld. Without seeing what the regulations will be, this parliament is at a disadvantage—that is, increasingly as these guidelines come forward they are not necessarily subject to disallowance, as guidelines themselves tend not to be subordinate legislation that comes back for the scrutiny of the parliament, and that can be a major concern. As the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has noted, there are some abhorrent provisions with regard to not only fundamental legislative principles but also regulations that will in effect amend the act. These Henry VIII provisions have been frowned on but have been increasingly creeping into the way legislation is drafted. There are also some quite stringent penalties put forward in this bill. As I understand it, that is to ensure there are the highest levels of safety reached. But, once again, that must be balanced with people’s ability to reasonably present themselves in a fair way and have access to a jurisdiction that will balance the rights and liberties of the individual with public safety issues. In supporting this legislation, it is still the role and responsibility of government to ensure there is investment in infrastructure to protect the public interest and to protect the safety of those who are operating in these environments. What we have seen in recent years with the tragedy of the crashes particularly in North Queensland is a growing awareness that, with an increased population and freight task on the roads, these conflict points with rail are highly dangerous. More needs to be done to ensure that safety and early-warning systems are put in place so that these events can as much as possible be prevented. Nobody wants to see the tragedies that we have seen in recent times. Nobody wants to see these tragedies replicated anywhere, let alone in urban centres where there is a high risk of conflict where vehicles come in contact with level crossings. I urge 572 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 25 Feb 2010 the government to start investing in the upgrades of these level crossings and not keep putting it off and passing the buck to other jurisdictions. It is time these critical concerns were addressed, because regulation alone will not keep people safe. With regard to the legislation before the House, as I have stated, we support the principle but wait to see the guidelines that will come forward. Mr EMERSON (Indooroopilly—LNP) (3.01 pm): As many members would know, train and rail safety is one of my favourite topics. Mr Kilburn: Tell us about the station at Indooroopilly. Mr EMERSON: It is good to hear that the member for Chatsworth is concerned about safety at Indooroopilly Railway Station. It is pleasing to see that at least one member on that side of the chamber is concerned about it, and I applaud his concern. He has obviously heard even from his constituents the real dangers at Indooroopilly Railway Station. Mr Watt interjected. Mr EMERSON: The member for Everton is concerned about it as well. I take the interjection from the member for Everton, because he said that everyone is talking about it. That is true: everyone is talking about it, because they are so concerned about safety at that station. They are asking: why was it not fixed? Why didn’t the Bligh Labor government fix it when it spent $27 million? Was this money wasted? It is a clear problem. I rise to speak to the Transport (Rail Safety) Bill. I note the minister’s claim in her second reading speech that the Queensland government is committed to further improving the safety performance of the state’s rail operations. There are five major train stations in my electorate of Indooroopilly. In fact, I came in on the train on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week. It was a good journey and I was fortunate enough to travel with Robert Dow, the convenor of the RAIL—Back on Track organisation, which has done some very good work in this area. It continues to raise concerns and very helpful suggestions about how to improve our public transport system. Earlier this week I caught the train at the Indooroopilly train station, which the member for Everton and the member for Chatsworth mentioned. As they would know, it is the busiest train station outside the CBD. I have spoken in this House previously about the $27 million upgrade of that railway station. That upgrade is and remains a monument to poor planning. The failure to provide park-and-ride facilities at the station was a slap in the face to the commuters who walk to the station and ignores the reality that nearby streets are parked out. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Pitt): Member for Indooroopilly, I ask that you come back to the issue of rail safety. Mr EMERSON: Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker, because this bill is about rail safety and I have raised repeatedly in this House numerous concerns about safety at that train station. Today I will be raising new concerns about safety at that station, concerns that all in this House should be very aware of. As I have said previously, as part of that multimillion-dollar upgrade, a gap of about 50 centimetres exists between the platform and the trains. My office has received numerous reports about people being injured attempting to negotiate this gap—a clear issue of safety at the train station. Clearly that situation is unacceptable, especially given that an average of 1,700 passengers pass through the station every peak hour, including hundreds of children who attend the nearby Holy Family, Brigidine, St Peters and Indooroopilly high schools and colleges. The minister has dismissed these safety concerns and tried to hide behind the suggestion that what the LNP would want to do is straighten the track. The real issue here is that, with $27 million, this serious safety problem should have been fixed. After spending $27 million of taxpayers’ money, still this issue has not been fixed. The real challenge now is that the money has been spent. Some $27 million of taxpayers’ money should have been used to fix this serious safety issue at one our major train stations but it was not. The money has now gone, but the safety problems remain. Let us look at that safety issue and the problems it has caused. With regard to that train station and safety of that area, the Bligh government knew about this problem even before the $27 million was spent. Let me cite the case of Lorraine Manteit. Three or four years ago, Lorraine’s father, who sadly recently died and was the subject of an article in the paper about an ambulance mix-up—another problem with this government in terms of its handling of another serious issue, health—had his leg caught between the platform and the carriage. This was before the upgrade. Lorraine makes the point that she told the then Labor MP for Indooroopilly, Ronan Lee, how important it was to have this matter fixed during the upgrade. So she alerted the Labor Party about this safety issue. Well before the money was spent on the upgrade she told the then Labor member about this. But was it fixed? No! Lorraine says that Queensland Rail would definitely have had a record of her father’s incident, as its first-aid attendant met the train at Central to assist her father. So Queensland Rail would have had something on its records about the real dangers and the lack of safety at this station. Her father was 82 when he died recently, and he and his wife lived at the Icon building in Station Road at Indooroopilly. That building is very close to the station and a lot of elderly residents reside in that building. Following 25 Feb 2010 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 573 the incident when her father was injured at the train station because of the gap, he and his wife could no longer access their building. The proximity of the train station was one of the reasons they moved to the Icon building in the first place. As a result of this incident, they had to move to a nursing home. Let me give the House another example of issues of safety at Indooroopilly Railway Station—that is, the case of Raewyn Hill. Raewyn’s 14-year-old disabled son was catching the 11.50 am train on the Ipswich-Caboolture line from Indooroopilly station to the city with his carer. When the train stopped at the station, there was distance— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Indooroopilly, I have given you a bit of latitude. I think you need to come back to the regulatory components of the bill. It is reasonably specific. Mr EMERSON: Mr Deputy Speaker, I will do that and in particular talk about the issue of safety. As the minister said in her second reading speech, the Queensland government is committed to further improving the safety performance of the state’s rail services. That is exactly what I am talking about here—the rail service, the train stations. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will not have the point argued. I believe you are straying a bit from the purpose of the bill. I ask you to return to its principal purpose. Mr EMERSON: Certainly. As I said, the rail service is a very important part of our train system and the Indooroopilly Railway Station is also a very important part of the whole train system. Let me point to another area which has come to light just this week about this station. This week my office was contacted by a man who uses the Indooroopilly train station every day. For five months the two information monitors in the walkway from Lambert Road have not been working. Andrew—the gentleman who contacted us—said he contacted Queensland Rail several times and each time there was a different reason as to why they had not been fixed. Andrew has personally witnessed on two occasions people tripping down the stairs to get to the other platform because the monitors are not working and people do not know which platform to access. I table a photo of those monitors. Tabled paper: Photo of camera at rail station [1786]. You cannot see very much on those monitors, I would have to admit, because they are blank. They are not working. From what Andrew has said, they have not worked for five months and every time he has made a complaint to Queensland Rail about it, nothing has been done. Andrew is concerned about the lack of interest by Queensland Rail staff in rectifying this problem. He is very critical of the overall design. He said that the only thing that was an improvement was the monitors, but they have not worked for five months. I have doubts that the Bligh government will recognise that these monitors not working is a problem, because last year the then Labor member for Indooroopilly and Bligh government parliamentary secretary told this House that he was delighted with the results of the upgrade. Deputy Premier Paul Lucas, the then minister for infrastructure and planning, said that the upgrade set the standard for future infrastructure. If this station sets the standard for future infrastructure, there can be no doubt as to why Queenslanders have so little faith in the Bligh government. Clearly, fixing the gap was too much, despite spending $27 million of taxpayers’ money. Hopefully, at least getting these monitors switched on may not be too much trouble for this government and this minister. Mr POWELL (Glass House—LNP) (3.10 pm): I, too, rise to contribute to the debate on the Transport (Rail Safety) Bill. The first element of the bill that I would like to address is the bill’s aim to adopt an integrated approach to risk management to ensure that risks are assessed, evaluated and controlled jointly by those parties that will have a safety interface by virtue of the scope and nature of their intended operations. I also note the minister’s comments in her second reading speech, particularly those related to level crossings, in that level crossing accidents pose the biggest risk to safe rail operations, with a possibility of catastrophic results. This bill also addresses safety at level crossings. For the first time in Queensland, legislation will require the state and local governments and private road owners to enter into agreements with rail transport operators as to how they will jointly manage level crossing safety. I am concerned that this requirement may have onerous implications for private landowners. You do not have to look too far to see how many individuals will be affected. I imagine my colleagues who represent northern and western areas, who will shortly be contributing to this debate, will certainly give numerous examples of this in their electorates. It is suffice for me to say that examples also exist within the seat of Glass House, with constituents accessing their properties across the main north rail line. For their sake, I hope that this bill is not an attempt by the government to abrogate fully its responsibility for safety at such sites and that it becomes a burden for those individuals. The second facet of the bill that I would like to dwell on for a moment relates to the concerns raised by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, particularly as they pertain to clauses 222 to 225 and clause 231. When it comes to imposing restrictions on the judicial system, the states have increasingly pushed the envelope. In this regard, perhaps over the years they were buoyed by High Court victories. The problem is that, with this buoyancy and the growing amount of national scheme legislation, the states may have pushed this envelope too far. The High Court has possibly drawn a line in the sand and chosen to uphold its constitutional foundation, as found in chapter 3. 574 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 25 Feb 2010

I would like to refer briefly to Gerard Carney’s book titled Constitutional Systems of the Australian States and Territories where it states— Chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution provides State courts with some measure of protection from State law. Primarily, it guarantees the existence of the State Supreme Courts, and it prevents legislative attempts to undermine the ‘institutional integrity’ of those State courts vested with federal judicial power. The latter protection may also provide State judges with some security of tenure. This protection applies whether the court is exercising State or federal judicial power. As a consequence of the coincidence of the State courts being used as repositories of federal judicial power, any impermissible interference in the exercise of their State jurisdiction inevitably undermines their independence in relation to the exercise of federal judicial power. Three High Court decisions have given rise to suggestions that it—the High Court—is beginning to watch state legislation such as this bill very carefully. I will mention those three cases. The first was Kable v DPP in New South Wales in 1996. Again, I refer to Gerard Carney’s book in summing up the outcomes of that case. He states— A majority of the High Court in Kable held that the States were prevented from vesting powers in their courts incompatible with the exercise by those courts of federal judicial power. Accordingly, New South Wales legislation which empowered the New South Wales Supreme Court to order the continued detention of Gregory Wayne Kable if the Court were satisfied that he was ‘more likely than not to commit a serious act of violence’, was held invalid as incompatible with the exercise of federal judicial power because it tended to undermine public confidence in the independence and integrity of the Supreme Court as a repository of federal judicial power. Gerard Carney goes on to state— Clearly, their integrity and independence is not divisible between jurisdictions. This was recognised by McHugh J in Kable: Because the State courts are an integral and equal part of the judicial system set up by charter III, it also follows that no State or federal parliament can legislate in a way that might undermine the role of those courts as repositories of federal judicial power. The second case is that referred to by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee in the Legislation Alert and that is the International Finance Trust v NSW Crime Commission 2009. Whilst the clauses in the New South Wales legislation that were struck down by the High Court were dissimilar to those in this bill, the High Court’s concern is consistent. Even those judges who dissented from the overall ruling commented in their report that moves to limit the powers of the court were ‘repugnant to the judicial process as understood and conducted in Australia’. The final case is Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales in February of this year. The salient points have been really well captured in this article in the Australian, published on 5 February 2010. It states— Constitutional law experts say the decision on Wednesday in which the conviction of an employer by the NSW Industrial Relations Court was overturned, will make it much harder for the states to insulate their specialist courts, tribunals and panels from review by higher courts. Although the state’s industrial laws ban appeals against IRC decisions, the High Court agreed to review the conviction of hobby farmer Graeme Kirk over the accidental death of his farm manager, Graham Palmer, at Picton, southwest of Sydney, in 2001. The High Court said state governments could not prevent supreme courts from reviewing decisions where specialist courts exceeded their power. In the Kirk case, the IRC had overreached by convicting the farmer when prosecutors had not identified what he should have done to avoid the accident. It also breached the laws of evidence by allowing him to be called as a prosecution witness. In his judgement, High Court judge Dyson Heydon said: ‘A major difficulty in setting up a particular court, like the industrial court, to deal with specific categories of work, one of which is a criminal jurisdiction in relation to a very important matter like industrial safety, is that the separate court tends to lose touch with the traditions, standards and mores of the wider profession and judiciary.’ ‘Another difficulty in setting up specialist courts is that they tend to become overenthusiastic about vindicating the purposes for which they were set up.’ The High Court’s decision could reduce the power of ‘privative clauses’, which restrict appeals to the mainstream courts, from thousands of state-based bodies. These include industrial courts, land and environment courts, tenancy tribunals, prisoners’ tribunals, and anti-discrimination bodies. That brings me to the clauses in question. As I said, the Legislation Alert refers to clauses 222 to 226 and clause 231, which respectively prohibit a relevant person from disclosing restricted information to any person or to a court; prohibit a person who has had access to restricted information from disclosing it to any person or to a court; provide specified, limited exceptions to the prohibition in clause 222; prohibit a court from requiring disclosure of restricted information; and provide that a person who is or has been a relevant person would not be obliged to comply with a subpoena or similar direction of a court to attend and answer questions about an occurrence if the chief executive had issued a certificate under section 230 for the person in relation to the occurrence, and that a relevant person would not be compellable to give any expert opinion in any civil or criminal proceedings in relation to rail safety. Further down in that chapter the committee invited the minister to provide further information regarding whether the legislation might be repugnant to the judicial process as understood and conducted in Australia. As I said, the High Court has indicated that the judicial power of the Commonwealth requires certain things of the courts which exercise that power and, to the extent that state legislation infringes on Commonwealth legislative power, the High Court, or sometimes the state Supreme Court, will step in. One thing required of courts exercising federal judicial power is that they exercise their functions in 25 Feb 2010 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 575 accordance with principles of natural justice. We saw that in Leeth v The Commonwealth in 1992. Another is that the exercise of judicial discretion not be unduly usurped such as in relation to whether evidence is admissible, as we saw in Nicholas v The Queen in 1988 and, it is imagined, similar issues regarding judicial discretion such as the compellability of witness. It is arguable that the identified provisions of the bill may impose a non-judicial requirement inconsistent with the exercise of judicial power. While the Land Court itself may not exercise federal judicial power, the limitations on it would extend to limit powers of appellate courts including those exercising federal judicial power. Given that we will not have an opportunity to receive the written response from the minister before the passing of this bill, would the minister give consideration to addressing in her summing up these concerns as they are raised in those clauses 222 to 226 and 231. With that I commend the bill to the House. Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (3.20 pm): It is with pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 2010. The Queensland government is committed to the effective management and control of safety risks in all rail operations. Our commitment to rail safety is demonstrated in a number of ways, but no more so than our active participation in the national rail safety reform agenda. Queensland has a major role in the efficient implementation of this reform agenda, a key requirement of the Council of Australian Governments, via cooperation with national and state government agencies, industry and unions. A landmark of the reform agenda was the approval by the Australian Transport Council in June 2006 of the national model for a rail safety bill. In December that year the council also approved the model for subordinate legislation. The bill we are debating today adopts the national model bill into Queensland law. Our railway network is an indispensable mode of day-to-day transport and its continued safe operation is vitally important. As passengers we can journey far and wide on our long- distance trains, such as the tilt train; we can enjoy speedy rail access to work and other destinations in our busy south-east; or we can take a step back into our glorious past and experience a ride on one of the state’s many tourist and heritage rail operations. We also depend on the railways for the timely and efficient transportation of general freight throughout the state. It is also well chronicled the important role the network plays in ensuring increasing levels of coal, minerals and other bulk freight are efficiently transported to our state’s many ports. Despite a rapidly growing population, passenger patronage and freight task, Queensland still has one of the safest rail networks in Australia. Before I speak on the benefits of the proposed bill, I think it important to reflect on the approach to rail safety regulation in Queensland. Throughout Australia, the responsibilities for regulating rail safety are shared between governments, rail industry participants and their associations. This coregulatory approach has long been recognised as the most appropriate balance in effectively managing the risks associated with rail safety. Under this coregulatory approach, rail operators are accredited to operate by the rail safety regulator. For our state, Queensland Transport is the rail safety regulator. Under the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994, a rail organisation is accredited by Queensland Transport only if that operator has an appropriate safety management system in place and the competence and capacity to safely manage the railway. As such, a rail organisation’s competence and capacity needs to be examined in the context of the complexity of its operations. The advantage of this approach is that it can be applied to all rail operators, including large complex organisations such as Queensland Rail, through to the smallest of tourist or heritage railways. But getting accredited is not the end of the regulatory process. In addition, Queensland Transport continually monitors all rail operators’ activities to make sure they comply with requirements and they are safe. Queensland Transport also investigates major rail occurrences and educates rail operators on potential opportunities to improve their safety performance. To date in Queensland the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 detailed these regulatory requirements. Now the time has come for the provisions contained in that act to be replaced by a dedicated new act dealing exclusively with rail safety. The measures contained in the bill will enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of rail safety regulation in Queensland, further demonstrating this government’s commitment to rail safety. For the first time, Queensland’s rail safety legislation will legislate the requirements of a rail operator’s safety management system. At the moment the majority of these requirements exist as administrative elements under the national accreditation package for rail safety. The rail safety regulator possesses a full range of audit, inspection and enforcement powers. This bill will further enhance these powers and instigate an array of checks and balances to ensure regulatory decision making continues to be timely, transparent and nationally consistent. Under existing legislation, private rail sidings have limited regulatory exposure. Queensland has several hundred of these private sidings and to further ensure that any safety risks with these sidings and the associated main rail line are managed the bill requires private sidings to be registered with the rail safety regulator. Such registration will depend on an assessment by the regulator as to whether there is sufficient risk management between the private siding manager and the manager of the main line. 576 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 25 Feb 2010

Another important aspect of the legislation is the provisions relating to interstate rail operators who are accredited in another state who might also wish to operate in Queensland—or vice versa, of course. Queensland Rail is a prime example in this regard, where it also needs to be accredited for its operations in New South Wales. It is a requirement under this bill for Queensland’s rail safety regulator to consult rail safety regulators in other states where a rail operator is already accredited so that there are consistent decisions. The various rail safety regulators will be required to work together so their various decisions are timely, transparent and, of course, consistent between jurisdictions. Such uniformity will also promote cost savings to industry and increase operational efficiencies. These general safety duties—in essence, a rail operator’s statutory duties of care—define the required level of safety that must be maintained at all times and make clear which parties have accountabilities for rail safety. These statutory duties primarily encompass specific prescribed railway operations, primarily the movement of rolling stock on a railway, and those activities that affect the safe operation or movement of that rolling stock. My research indicates that the regulatory impact statement prepared by the National Transport Commission for the model bill indicates that while a few of the new provisions will result in modest cost increases, implementation of most aspects of this bill should result in a net reduction in business compliance costs. I am also pleased to note that rail operators will now be given up to 12 months to implement the safety management system and associated requirements of the new legislation. It is important to note that in adopting the national reforms, states were given the opportunity to forgo legislating on some of the model national measures. Queensland has taken that opportunity where required, including for operations considered requiring exemption under this bill. I am proud of our safe rail network and I feel very secure in the knowledge that this new bill will provide a range of contemporary regulatory measures to further improve rail safety. The bill also recognises that the rail industry is not just a state based industry but an industry that operates Australia- wide. Rail operators have long recognised that inconsistencies in the various state based regimes were impeding rail investment and operational efficiencies. It should not be overlooked that this bill will help to remove many of those inconsistencies and impediments. I commend the bill to the House. Ms FARMER (Bulimba—ALP) (3.29 pm): I rise in support of the Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 2010. It is an honour and a privilege to stand before this parliament today in support of this historic piece of Queensland rail safety legislation. The Transport (Rail Safety) Bill will help build on and strengthen one of Australia’s safest railway environments. Queensland’s rail industry continues to grow in diversity, size and strength, contributing significantly to the state’s economy through the safe movement of passengers and freight, as well as employing a substantial number of Queenslanders. With an ever-increasing population, particularly in the South-East Queensland region, patronage of our railways has never been greater. Many people rely on the great rail network that we have here in Queensland on a daily basis to commute to and from home, work and school. Of the utmost importance to these commuters is not only a train service that runs on time but a train service that will deliver them safely to their required destination. Let us also not forget that our rail network plays a very important role in the continued economic growth that we enjoy here in Queensland. Many of our fellow Queenslanders living in the regions rely upon the rail network for the delivery of vital goods and services. Without our expansive Queensland rail network many communities would struggle to survive. Queensland also relies on the rail network to cart the world’s best coal from the mines to a number of seaports where haulage ships wait to deliver it around the world. The Queensland government takes its role in ensuring safety on our rail network very seriously. We confidently believe that this legislation will enhance the overall safety of our rail network and continue maintaining the excellent safety record we have worked hard to achieve in Queensland. Maintaining this great state’s excellent rail safety record is not down to good luck. It takes a concerted effort and commitment not just from the government but also from those companies, such as Queensland Rail and Pacific National Queensland to name but two, who operate trains in Queensland. Government and rail industry participants work together in a purposefully established environment of co-regulation. Clearly this environment has assisted in providing a rail network that is the envy of the rest of Australia. While Queensland possesses such an enviable rail safety record, the Queensland government acknowledges that we cannot rest on our reputation. Not only must we maintain our terrific safety record; we must always strive for continuous improvement. In this regard, we firmly believe that the Transport (Rail Safety) Bill will provide an improved regulatory framework for the safe management and operation of our rail network. The Transport (Rail Safety) Bill details the regulatory requirements of existing and prospective rail transport operators. Before commencing railway operations, all rail transport operators must be accredited. In order to be accredited, prospective rail transport operators must demonstrate to the Queensland rail safety regulator that they possess the competence and capacity to safely undertake the 25 Feb 2010 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 577 railway operations for which they seek accreditation. While this requirement has been well established under current legislation, the Transport (Rail Safety) Bill requires further evidence that a rail transport operator has the competence and capacity to undertake railway operations. Such competence and capacity is demonstrated through a safety management system which contains crucial safety components such as security management plans, emergency management plans and health and fitness management plans, amongst other requirements. The Transport (Rail Safety) Bill also contains legislative requirements for the Queensland rail safety regulator. A key requirement is for the Queensland regulator to consult with a regulator in another jurisdiction in instances where an operator seeks accreditation to operate in multiple jurisdictions. Regulators are required to work together to ensure that decision making is undertaken in a timely, transparent and consistent manner. No longer will rail transport operators be required to comply with legislation that is fundamentally different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The Transport (Rail Safety) Bill also complements the Workplace Health and Safety Act. Specifically, general safety duties contained in the Transport (Rail Safety) Bill complement those included in the Workplace Health and Safety Act. While the Workplace Health and Safety Act governs the safety requirements of manufacturers, designers and installers, the Transport (Rail Safety) Bill covers matters specific to the safe operation of railways, particularly in regard to rail safety work. It gives me great pleasure to stand in this place today in support of legislation dedicated to the continued safe, efficient and effective operation of our state’s great railway network. I commend this bill to the House. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (3.34 pm): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise to speak to the Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 2010. I initially thank my colleagues, the members of the crossbenches, for allowing me to speak early on the speaking list and also members of the opposition for allowing me to jump the queue. It is certainly appreciated. I have been waiting quite some time for the minister to introduce this bill. I understand that it is part of national scheme legislation. I am pleased to stand here and say that Queensland is prepared to make changes to national scheme legislation where common sense prevails and where the uniqueness of Queensland is recognised. In particular, my comments will refer to the amendment the minister has foreshadowed. I thank the minister for listening to our calls for minor changes to this proposed national scheme legislation. We have seen today that the state government is prepared to make changes and not just blindly follow national scheme legislation. The changes relate to our railway enthusiasts—and we have quite a few in Queensland. They are passionate people who are not only married to their wives or their families but also married to their trains and their train equipment. The amendment that the minister has foreshadowed recognises that and says, ‘We want to make sure you are not going to get caught up in the compliance of the national scheme legislation, which is focused on the safety of members of the public on trains.’ The minister’s amendment, to expressly make sure that the bill does not apply to private railways which are not open to the public, is generally appreciated by all of our railway enthusiasts throughout Queensland. I take members to page 3 of the explanatory notes to the amendments. I want to comment on the criteria that the chief executive will be required to take into consideration when an application is made by our railway hobbyists, who have their train and their track, for exemption. I will go through those criteria. The first criteria is ‘the scope and nature of the railway operations’. I think that is self-explanatory. The second criteria is ‘operations on a track that is not connected to any other rail network or across a road; and is privately owned or operated on a not for reward basis’. I think that is very sensible. We certainly do not want to have any conflict with roads or other public infrastructure. The third criteria is ‘railway operations that are conducted for personal enjoyment or pleasure on private property and not open to the general public’. This is an issue that we have always maintained. If railway enthusiasts do not have their train and train line open to the public then they should be exempt. The fourth criteria is ‘low speed rolling stock operations’. That makes sense; we are not talking about a high-speed tilt train service. The next criteria is ‘movement of rolling stock in daylight hours only’. I understand that one of the enthusiasts I am aware of sometimes likes to return just on sunset. So hopefully a reasonableness test can be applied as to whether they have to strictly adhere to daylight hours only. The next criteria is ‘no opposing train movements’. That makes sense—that we do not have an enthusiast on a train and a train coming the other way. I thank the minister for that inclusion. The last criteria that I want to clarify is ‘no operation or movement of rolling stock while members of the public are on site’. I understand that this is intended to cover the situation when perhaps one of our railway enthusiasts has an open day. He might say, ‘I am happy to show off my railway equipment for a gold coin donation,’ and the gold coin goes to a local community charity. I understand that, if there are members of the public looking at the trains, the carriages and all the railway memorabilia, there is to be no movement of any rolling stock—no movement of the train or any carriages. By way of comparison, my understanding is that that criterion is not intended to cover the situation where the railway owner 578 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 25 Feb 2010 invites a friend, a neighbour, a friend of a friend or simply someone who has heard about his great train who rings up and asks, ‘Can I come for a joy-ride?’ and he says, ‘Yes, come up and we will go for a ride up the hill.’ That situation is not intended to be covered. I understand that this is all about a reasonableness test. I wish to thank the minister for listening to our calls. The amendment that the minister has foreshadowed is certainly very sensible. I hope that other states around Australia will follow the minister’s lead to make sure railway enthusiasts right around Australia are able to enjoy their railway activities and, importantly, do so lawfully and openly. I thank the minister for her amendment and her bill. Mr KNUTH (Dalrymple—LNP) (3.40 pm): In speaking to the Transport (Rail Safety) Bill, it is very important that we acknowledge the significance and importance of safety, not just in Queensland Rail in general but in all facets of life. I believe rail safety is a very important issue within Queensland Rail. We have seen the deaths of two workers who were struck by a track machine at Mindi in the coalfields, we had a death at the Mundoo level crossing at Innisfail and we had a tilt train incident at Rungoo about 30 or 40 kilometres outside Cardwell. Obviously, these incidents have caused a lot of distress to the families and have cost a lot of money. There have been a lot of inquiries. If we can implement strategies to prevent these incidents, we will reduce that cost and take away that terrible stress factor. I acknowledge that the government is playing a role in upgrading these crossings. I would also like to acknowledge the union’s role, especially the RTBU, and their passion to see these improvements to rail safety. They have been powerfully lobbying the government. They are lobbying for a program called Operation Lifesaver. I fully support this program and I have supported it publicly. Operation Lifesaver began operating in Canada as a public education program. I know the minister has heard about this. The program is jointly funded by the Railway Association of Canada and Transport Canada and it began in 1981. It works in cooperation with the Canada Safety Council, provincial safety councils and leagues, railway companies, unions, police, public and community groups and more than 550 certified presenter volunteers. The program promotes public awareness across Canada about the dangers surrounding public highway and railway crossings and trespassing on rail property. Operation Lifesaver aims to join all provincial and federal authorities in a nationwide effort to reduce deaths, injuries and property damage resulting from railway related incidents. To achieve this union, Operation Lifesaver—in cooperation with businesses, governments, railways and civic leaders— produces printed material, films and audiovisual presentations to assist in all stages of planning, implementing and evaluating. This program has significantly reduced level crossing deaths in Canada. While I acknowledge the state government has embraced recommendations by level crossing working groups in Queensland, I have to say that I do believe we need rumble strips or rumble mats. This part of that Operation Lifesaver program has not been implemented but it has been embraced in Canada. These rumble mats have been successfully used in Victoria over the last 12 months and they work by warning motorists that they are approaching a level crossing. The Travelsafe Committee talked about the importance of those rumble strips and about how effective they have been in preventing deaths. As motorists are travelling along, those rumble strips do give them a warning. The RTBU has been powerfully lobbying for this initiative. A lot of those union members are train drivers and they understand the situation. I know that every time those train drivers approach a level crossing they are virtually packing death. It is very unsettling for them. Yes, we have warning signs and sometimes we have flashing lights, and there are boom gates at Rungoo siding where the tilt train incident occurred—and the boom gates are very important—but sometimes there is a malfunction with those gates. Those rumble mats would play a big role. It is good that we will have an overpass in 2012, but those rumble mats would make a difference now. It is the same at the Conn level crossing, which is in between the Rungoo siding and Cardwell. They would also be good at the level crossing at Innisfail. But I am not just talking about those level crossings. I believe they need to be implemented at all level crossings; they all need to be upgraded. In time, I think we will see those rumble mats. This bill is about safety. We have been talking about the level crossings, but there are also issues that relate to track work safety. Sometimes when we are looking at safety, we can go a little bit overboard to the point where safety provisions hinder the work performance of those workers who are trying to operate and maintain the track. I will give the House an example of that. Work in the Brisbane district is done differently from the work out west. The workers completely block the track here, they work at night and they direct the train onto another track. Employees can then get in there and do the job without worrying about having a lookout. Sometimes in rural and regional Queensland—like the western line—a workforce has to do a particular job, such as lifting a hole in a track or pulling out a sleeper. Those workers can see two kilometres one way and two kilometres the other way, but they need to have a work site briefing, they have to draw a diagram of their point of safety, they need to have a flag person and they need to have the train information. That is all very well, but the job could have been done in 20 minutes with four or five men and instead it takes two hours. 25 Feb 2010 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 579

Safety is important. When doing a job like that, providing there is a flagman who is looking one end and a flagman who is looking the other, they can virtually cut out that red tape that prevents those workers from doing their job. The unions are concerned that people will lose their jobs because they are getting less maintenance work done. It is very difficult to implement a safety program and for there to be flexibility in it. I believe there needs to be an element of flexibility. I will use what occurred at Mindi as an example. That is a very touchy subject, but there were two issues. One was fatigue and the other was the fact that if there had been a flag person there those deaths could have been prevented. There is a concern that staff reductions can result in a loss of safety. That is very important and I would like to stress that. Another issue is to do with QRNational and what it is now calling a track occupancy authority. In the past, track gangs could get what they called WSO1 forms where they get information from the train controller. Now they need to give 24-hours notice and they would block the track to do their job. I was talking before about flexibility. You do not have to block the track—it is a different story in Brisbane, but I am talking about Western Queensland—provided you have a workforce with a lookout one way and a lookout the other way. When they are on a curve, they would have a site lookout who is about 400 metres further on with a whistle and a flag to warn them. You do not have to go through all this regulation to get the job done. I wanted to bring that to the attention of the House. Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (3.49 pm): I rise today to contribute my comments on the government’s Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 2010. The main purpose of this bill is to provide for rail safety legislation that will form part of a system of nationally consistent rail safety laws. The bill sets out our legal duties and operating requirements that are to be applied on a nationally consistent basis to all parties responsible for rail safety and will underpin future national regulations, compliance codes and guidelines. This bill will be built on by the current and ongoing reform agenda towards a single national rail regulator. The National Transport Commission developed a national model rail safety bill in 2006 which was developed in conjunction with representatives of all jurisdictions including the rail industry and rail unions, and receives legal effect when reproduced in each jurisdiction’s legislation. Other states’ versions of the bill have now been enacted in Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania and are currently before the parliaments in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. The bill provides for general safety duties that require all rail transport operators and contractors performing prescribed railway operations to ensure the safety of those operations. These statutory duties of care define the required level of safety and make clear which parties have accountabilities for rail safety. There is a system of accreditation to provide assurance that rail transport operators have the competence and capacity to operate safely before they are permitted to operate. There are audit and inspection powers. There is a hierarchy of compliance and enforcement powers and sanctions to facilitate an effective and proportionate regulatory response to detected forms of noncompliance by rail transport operators and other persons. There is an array of checks and balances on regulatory behaviour to ensure that regulatory decision-making processes are timely, transparent and nationally consistent. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the minister and her staff for the briefing which the backbench committee received on this bill. The Liberal National Party supports this legislation for a national standard of consistency on rail safety laws. This extends to consistency amongst our rail services as well. Rail and access to services or lack thereof is often lamented by the residents in the Mudgeeraba electorate. With the new Varsity station coming online to service the Gold Coast, one would think that residents would be utilising this service. Alas, with Varsity being in a zone of its own—and apparently that will remain the case until the rail line is extended to Coolangatta—residents are being charged for an additional zone to travel to Brisbane. Many residents in my electorate continue to drive to Robina Station as it is cheaper to get a ticket from there than it is from Varsity. It now costs residents an additional $32 per month to travel a mere 4.1 kilometres from Robina to Varsity. This issue was mentioned by the Editor of the Gold Coast Sun, Shane Watson, who states— PASSING Varsity railway station the other day it struck me the place looks pretty ... empty. So I raised this with Mudgeeraba MP Ros Bates and she almost bit my head off. It seems the trains arriving at the end of the line do not link with the bus timetables, and it also costs extra ... to get from Robina because of some line on some map somewhere in Brisbane. Ros will be making some noise on ‘zones’ in Parliament this week but it seems until some pencil-pusher turns their Staedler upside down to the eraser end and rubs out the line on this all-important map, the station will remain very much a white elephant. Residents are still fighting for adequate rail services on the Gold Coast. It is now four years ago since a petition commenced by me and my campaign manager in the 2006 election was lodged by the former member for Chatsworth, Michael Caltabiano, in parliament and petitioners are still waiting for a response from the minister. I am not talking about this minister; I am talking about the previous two ministers. Perhaps the new minister might like to respond to the ‘Bombay Express’ petition. This expression was coined by me in 2006 in my campaign. As I said, we are still waiting for services. Until such time as the Labor government builds another road and rail bridge over the Brisbane River, the choke point at the Grey Street Bridge will remain and continue to cause trains to be backed up and down the line to the Gold Coast. 580 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 25 Feb 2010

This bill purports to implement an array of checks and balances on regulatory behaviour to ensure that decision-making processes are timely, transparent and nationally consistent. It is time that this government was transparent and consistent with rail users, particularly on the Gold Coast. What is the point of having a station at Varsity Lakes when the train timetables do not marry up with the bus timetables? I have been informed by TransLink at my community forum that this will not occur in this financial year and that there are no plans to increase or change the timetables to encourage residents to utilise public transport instead of driving. Gold Coast Christian schools have been pleading with TransLink to sort out the timetable issue for their students. They predict that if these timetables were more workable it would take 1,000 cars a day off Gemvale Road, a road that is routinely clogged morning and evening, making students and workers up to an hour late to reach their destination daily. I have requested to meet with the minister on this issue this week, but sadly residents will have to wait a little longer until the minister agrees to meet with me. I hope that the minister agrees to meet with me and other local groups in Reedy Creek. If this is not the case, then I am sure that the minister will find out just what ‘people power’ means in Reedy Creek, as I am sure the Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy discovered during the STOP—Stop the Overhead Powerlines—issue in Reedy Creek in the lead-up to the 2009 election. There remains concerns that this legislation may disadvantage private landowners who have rail lines through their properties and that the shift of risk and potential cost regarding these crossings may affect smaller land holdings adjacent to rail infrastructure. I would ask the minister what safeguards will be put in place so that these residents will not be financially disadvantaged. Whilst I understand that it has been estimated that improvements in rail safety have the potential to realise $338.2 million over the next 10 years nationally, it is important to not encumber residents with a future financial burden in this instance. I commend the bill to the House. Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—LNP) (3.54 pm): This is again one of these national template Commonwealth driven bills. It is about rail safety. Any bill that genuinely seeks to make anything safer is to be supported, and we support the bill. The minister’s second reading speech sounds almost like a lament as she details how vast and diverse the Queensland Rail operations are. I say this because she acknowledges that rail operations are increasing, the rail corridors are increasing and operations are conducted across 9,800 kilometres in our state. She rightfully points out the growing influence of the rapidly emerging private rail operator Pacific National and Queensland’s rail Goliath, QR. Honourable members need to understand that three months ago Asciano, the owner of Pacific National, raised over $2 billion of fresh capital in the market as it builds up to fuel its drive forward for expansion of the Queensland Rail network. Macarthur Coal, the Labor darling company headed by former state Treasurer Keith De Lacy, has just awarded its rail head bulk coal transport contract to Asciano’s subsidiary, which is Pacific National. Gina Rinehart has announced that she is going to build her own private 550-kilometre bulk rail network and her trams will carry double the weight of crushed coal per wagon on that network. Clive Palmer has announced not just the new China First mine at Galilee Basin but also that he will build a new rail coal terminal at Abbot Point. What is state Labor under Bligh and Fraser doing? They put QR up for sale. Initially they tried a trade sale or at best a tender. Now they want to test the market and try a massive float. This is at a time when two major similar market government private entities wallow in the same market, that being Telstra and Suncorp. It saddens me greatly to see the Rudd Labor government attempt to reduce Telstra to a much smaller shell. Suncorp is a major Queensland bank insurer. The old SGIO, Labor members may not know, was started by TJ Ryan in 1915—Labor’s first majority Premier and a great Queenslander. What is Labor’s justification? Its own safety—read survival. Isn’t it amazing that this bill is about rail safety? How ironic that it is an LNP alternative government that is defending the rights of every Queenslander including those who work for QR. Its asset sales program is all about Labor survival after it blew a massive hole in the Queensland state budget. It lost the AAA status, and its ratings agencies have demanded their pound of flesh. We are a state only currently safe from the massive increase in compound interest by the federal government’s Commonwealth guarantee. Labor has no electoral mandate to sell QR or the motorways, nor the forest for that reason. If it wants to do so, it should go to an election and ask the public for their opinion. Rail safety under this bill is said to be enhanced best practice. The government talks about shared responsibility. I read this as code for transferring costs onto smaller providers to provide a mixture of heritage railway groups for railway enthusiasts and small tourist operators. I suppose we are going to see costs also transferred to local private property owners where rail passes over their properties. Just exactly how much this potential cash grab under the mantra of rail safety will cost I am not sure. In fact, it is very unclear. There are plenty of feel-good statements inclusive of some very worthy plans and programs for security management, health and fitness management, alcohol and drug management and fatigue management. The speech given by the minister is so full of motherhood statements that one really has to examine the detail in the 262-page bill which accompanies it and the explanatory notes. I thought it 25 Feb 2010 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 581 might interest those wordsmiths amongst us that the word ‘safety’ in this 2½-page speech in the printed form is said 22 times, yet only one sentence largely explains the true intention of the bill. It is to be found at the bottom of page 2, paragraph 12. There is a cursory recognition of the national standards for workplace health and safety, even though I heard multiple members on the government benches say that it does. As one might expect, as is the norm with this top layer regulatory boot, the government enhances the powers of the Queensland rail safety regulator to audit, inspect and enforce safety. There is a footnote saying that it will be transparent, timely and nationally consistent. What is not mentioned is the dreadful problem of Caesar judging Caesar. The justification for the legislative step is dangerous level crossings causing unsafe rail operations. The government’s idea of shared responsibility is in the detailed reading of the act implying that property owners are asked to at least partially assume responsibility for those incidents that may occur at any one of these many isolated level crossings. Before reaching down into the minutiae, what is fascinating is the contrast between the issue of mutual or shared responsibility and the issue of double standards. Clause 260 grants the CEO and staff complete immunity from civil liability. But clauses 267 to 269 give that same CEO quite unfettered powers to have any matter of judicial action taken against individuals and identified persons who they, including the CEO, feel may have contravened an undertaking. Without attempting to suggest that appropriate action should never be considered against certain individuals where appropriate, who says they are appropriate. I am fortunate in my electorate of Gaven that level crossings have been eliminated. But there are many close to my extended family who live rurally. The roads that cross these rail lines are used by many and often large cattle transporters. Very few of the large coal trains in the Central Queensland basin are now affected, but there are some that are. I am very familiar with some of them. As most will know, country roads are very much subject to the vagaries of weather, use and soil type. Certainly in blacksoil areas that is a major problem. Increasingly, these roads are affected by the inability of councils to repair them due to council amalgamations and the withdrawal of $5 billion in state government grants to councils. The transporters that carry the cattle are actually getting bigger. They are increasingly more destructive to road surfaces and harder to stop. Everyone’s timetables are too tight, time is money and accidents do occur. Does that then imply that the Labor government could take legal action against landowners or councils or even the unfortunate individuals affected? I think the answer is really no. Rail corridors are very much the property of government. They generally covet their freehold title over these easements. With that title comes responsibility. The Torrens title system has a sting in the tail for those who control such easements, especially when they grant themselves greater rights. This is increasingly more significant when the rail corridors are being used for other types of purposes, including broadband networks in the ground alongside the road. Rail safety is a wider problem than this bill is confronting. On the Gold Coast passenger rail line we have the continuing problem of overcrowded trains. Like many have mentioned here this afternoon, unfortunately our train is called the ‘Bombay Express’ and that is a tragedy. The reasons can be clearly explained by what occurred on 22 February this year when the 5.32 train arrived as a three-car set, not as a six-car set. This is the second time in less than one month that this has occurred on a Monday morning. The Gold Coast’s population is now nearing three-quarters of a million people and over Christmas, with tourists, it actually hits about 1.3 million people. This is the major and only public transport arterial into Brisbane from the Gold Coast. Not only does a three-carriage set not hold enough people but without warning, on the busiest day of the working week, many commuters—and I would says thousands of commuters—are left without options. For members’ information, on both Monday and Tuesday this week, if one left after 6 am, the road trip from Nerang to Brisbane was 2½ hours. This has become a serious rail safety issue. In other words, people cannot divert onto the road network—that being the M1—when the train is running three- carriage sets or is running late or does not arrive at all. Businesses in Brisbane are now being routinely affected because staff are delayed getting to work. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Farmer): Order! Could I remind the member that we are debating the Transport (Rail Safety) Bill and to keep his comments relevant to the provisions of the bill. Dr DOUGLAS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is all this talk about duplication and the routine running of six-carriage sets, and it is not occurring. There has been no start on the duplication of the Coomera flood plain line which is critical to increasing the frequency of rail traffic at peak hours because north to south and south to north rail carriages still have to share a single line. QR is responsible for line safety but it is not giving those passengers transported or who wish to be transported due care under the occupational health and safety guidelines. 582 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 25 Feb 2010

QR, with the go card, has put up fares by 20 per cent. That has been raised by the member for Mudgeeraba. Single ticket costs have risen by 40 per cent. With no seats, a dubious capacity to get on the trains at all and the ever present possibility of line closures, this is not the safe operation of a major asset of QR. Demand for seats on trains is increasing at a higher proportional rate than in other comparable systems in Australia due to multiple factors, every one of which is due to a planning failure of this Labor administration. The Varsity Lakes connection to Brisbane has no bus links that are sequenced with train timetables. As I say, the Pacific Motorway is routinely delayed for nine hours a day—five hours in the morning and four hours in the afternoon. The frequency of six-carriage sets is insufficient during peak hour times. The continuing growth of the Gold Coast remains at 1,500 people per week. With the cost of fuel, rising interest rates and more jobs being available in Brisbane as the market has declined on the Gold Coast, people are travelling to Brisbane. I believe the transport superministry has been a failure for us. I think we really need to confront the fact that Gold Coast light rail is a system that is neither rapid nor mass transit capable. It will not solve our major problem. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I repeat my comments. Could the member keep to the provisions of the bill. Dr DOUGLAS: We have a safety issue regarding the hundreds of thousands of people who travel on the line, mainly at peak hour. We are increasingly diverting them on to the motorway which is increasingly becoming more dangerous at the bottleneck at Nerang. We desperately need to be able to run the six-car sets for nine hours of the day and we desperately need to have eight lanes on the motorway from Nerang to Tugun. In terms of rail safety management day to day, I suspect honourable members might be interested to know what really occurs. It might also help to explain why lines have remained closed inexplicably, especially on the regional passenger network, over the last five years. Station staff have been progressively deskilled and massively reduced both numerically in proportion to the number of stations and the hours worked, effectively leaving many stations unmanned from 6 pm to 6 am daily. Staff are unable to remove anything from the tracks. That is an issue of safety on the tracks. They have to report it to a central network maintenance section. The line is then shut down for up to an hour— and this is a massive problem on the Gold Coast—and the cleaning squad is sent out. It gets worse when it comes to the issue of buckled lines. Rather than replace or repair those lines, the routine is to slow the trains and put an automatic signal controller sleeper under the approach to the affected line. As a result, we have difficulty with actually having enough people and enough line network. I believe the network is partially disabled much of the time. Is that safety in action or is that delaying the inevitable? Is it a cost-cutting measure? What bright spark came up with the idea of a central line cleaning crew? These people are union members. Implementing go cards and basically controlling the number of people required to clear lines means that people have nothing to do. People are not really being allowed to do their jobs properly. This rail safety bill is primarily about safety at level crossings. There is ample global research, including a very comprehensive Canadian study, clearly showing what reduces fatalities at low level crossings. In simple terms, it is increasing the conspicuity of rail itself—that being both the engine that pulls the train and the carriages; they could be multiple colours and that sort of thing—education of staff and road users, better approaches and markings, appropriate funding on the basis of data collection, national coordination because this is a national bill, and legislation and enforcement. The name of the study was Operation Lifesaver. It is the critical study in world terms today. These are critical areas of rail safety. In terms of how it affects people in my electorate, I point out that we have a major problem with fare evasion. The people who are charged with trying to stop people fare evading—this is a safety issue with regard to rail crews— Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have asked the member to please refer to the bill. Dr DOUGLAS: I refer to the bill under part 1 with regard to clause 10. It specifically refers to the matters I am raising—‘work involving the management or monitoring of the safety of passengers on or at a railway’. Fare evasion is believed to be very common. The problem is difficult to resolve because of the issues of safety for the rail crew to enforce the law. Ticket inspectors are only able to catch those willing to be caught. They are unable to use force nor chase fare evaders under QR’s no-chase policy. My other concern is for the safety of passengers. The QR safety manual for effectively dealing with disruptive passengers on the Citytrain network states in the section headed ‘Assisting passengers in danger’ that train crews do not have a legal obligation to assist other passengers who are in danger. Who is there to help the passenger? In fact, this is what is specifically mentioned in this bill. Is this a proper safety procedure? The implication is that the train crew have now been asked to ignore this because their ability to detain or control someone until police arrive has been diminished. Furthermore, if members of the train crew do use force they are exposed to criminal prosecution and civil proceedings. 25 Feb 2010 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 583

This is a bill that does not actually do what it was said to do. It is about the transfer of responsibility to identified individuals and, effectively, adjoining property owners. The enforcement is targeted at these people and excludes senior management. Where is the comprehensive program about site assessment and treatment, an issue raised in Operation Lifesaver from Canada—the most comprehensive study done in the world in the last 10 years which overwhelmingly must have been the basis of national template legislation? It has been claimed that there is a $338 million saving over 10 years. I cannot work out what Queensland’s contribution would be, but every time you save a life you have done a lot to help people. There is not enough evidence of a bottom-up parallel approach in this legislative step. As we have just seen how not to manage a rail passenger safety system on the Gold Coast, we are potentially watching the proclamation of a national scheme that here in Queensland has far too little money put in to make a difference. We support the bill, but that does not necessarily mean that we will not add some substantial information regarding what the government needs to do and hold the government to account while adding some sincerity to the debate on the issue of rail safety. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (4.12 pm): I rise in support of the Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 2010. First of all, I would like the minister to pass on a quick thanks to TransLink for its prompt action recently in getting a shelter for the Darra temporary bus stop. Constituents complained to me and TransLink got out there and put up that shelter in order to keep commuters out of the sun and under cover. Queensland has one of the safest rail networks across Australia, and this effort has been maintained during a period when our population has grown by more than 900,000 and annual rail passenger trips rose from around 42 million to more than 58 million per year. Queensland is determined not only to maintain this sound safety record but to further improve it. As members are aware, all Australian jurisdictions have been focusing on developing more consistent rail safety legislation and regulatory practices as part of the wider national rail safety reform agenda. A key deliverable of the reform agenda is the national model rail safety bill. The national model bill on which the Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 2010 is based was approved in 2006 by Australian Transport Council members. The Transport (Rail Safety) Bill was developed in close consultation with a range of state and Commonwealth government agencies and industry, including commercial and tourist heritage operators, unions and special interest groups. A significant highlight of the bill is the inclusion in legislation of general safety duties which will, for the first time in Queensland, require all rail transport operators and contractors who undertake specific prescribed railway operations to ensure the safety of those railway operations so far as is reasonably practicable. These statutory duties of care are designed to increase the regulatory reach of the rail safety regulator and define the required level of safety, making clear which parties have accountabilities for rail safety. The particular railway operations to which these duties relate primarily cover the movement of rolling stock on a railway and activities that affect the safe operation or movement of that rolling stock. Such prescribed railway operations generally take place on or within the immediate vicinity of a railway track and do not include activities which take place in workshops or other workplaces away from the immediate vicinity of the track. These general rail safety duties have been developed to complement Queensland’s other safety legislation, particularly the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995. I am glad to see that the Transport (Rail Safety) Bill brings over many of the existing rail safety elements of the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994. Following the 2004 Bundaberg tilt train derailment, legislation was passed in this House in 2005 which ensured that complete and thorough investigations of rail safety incidents could occur. A crucial element in rail investigations is the revelation of the truth without fear of further judicial proceedings for witnesses. The rail safety regulator predominantly adopts a no-blame approach to rail safety investigations, with the sole purpose of revealing the cause of the accident so that lessons can be learned and action taken where necessary to prevent further occurrences and improve safety for all rail users. The legislation provides the appropriate level of protection to witnesses so that they are prepared to make information available in an investigation to determine the truth. The new bill mirrors those same provisions to ensure the rail safety regulator has legislation at its disposal to enable the best safety outcome possible. This bill builds on the rail safety regulator’s current audit, inspection and enforcement powers. The Department of Transport and Main Roads, as the rail safety regulator, will now also be able to audit contractors who perform rail safety related work for rail transport operators, if it is considered necessary, in addition to the current power to audit accredited rail operators. Rail safety officers will also have the power to issue improvement notices and prohibition notices to rail operators whose actions may be contravening a provision of this bill or threatening rail safety in any way. Operators issued with such notices will be required to remedy any contravention or threat within a specified period of time. In cases where there may be an immediate threat to safety, operators will have to stop certain activities until that threat has been addressed. These changes strengthen rail 584 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 25 Feb 2010 safety officers’ existing powers to issue notices by prescribing greater detail about the content of notices, the circumstances in which they may be issued and the actions that they may require. I commend the bill to the House. Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (4.17 pm): I rise to support the Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 2010. As members would expect, the Queensland government is committed to the effective management and control of safety risks in rail operations. This commitment is demonstrated in a number of ways, but none more so than by its active participation in the national rail safety reform agenda. Queensland is playing an important role in the efficient implementation of this reform agenda, which is a key requirement by the Council of Australian Governments via cooperative development with national and state government agencies, industry and of course unions. As such, a key deliverable of the reform agenda was the June 2006 Australian Transport Council approved rail safety reform package, which included the national model rail safety bill. The Australian Transport Council has also approved the accompanying model subordinate legislation 2006 from December, I think, of that year and, as such, it is important to acknowledge that the bill we are debating today adopts the national model bill into Queensland law. Our railway network is an indispensable mode of day-to-day transport—we have all heard that today—and its continued safe operation is of vital importance to all Queenslanders. This state has nearly 10,000 kilometres of rail corridor and around 38 accredited railways operating across the state, and these range from large commercial operations like QR and Pacific National right down to the various smaller tourist and heritage rail operators. In fact, there are a couple of those in my electorate at the moment. As such, a passenger can journey on our world-class long-distance trains such as the tilt train, can enjoy speedy rail access to work and other destinations in our busy south-east via the Citytrains, or can take a step back into our glorious past and experience a ride on one of the state’s many tourist and heritage rail operations, usually by way of steam. Queenslanders also depend on their railways for the timely and efficient transportation of general freight throughout the state. As such, it is also well chronicled what an important role our network plays in ensuring that the burgeoning levels of coal, minerals and other bulk freight are transported efficiently to our state’s many ports. That is where it is important to point out that, despite a rapidly growing population, increased passenger patronage and escalating freight tasks, Queensland still has one of the safest—if not the safest—rail networks in Australia. Before I speak about the benefits of this bill, I think it is important to reflect on the current approach to rail safety regulation in Queensland. In Queensland—and indeed throughout Australia—the responsibilities for regulating rail safety are shared between governments, rail industry participants and their associations. This coregulatory approach has long been recognised as the most appropriate balance in effectively managing the risks associated with rail safety. Under this coregulatory approach, rail operators are accredited to operate by the rail safety regulator, and in Queensland that means that the Department of Transport and Main Roads undertakes the role of the rail safety regulator. Currently, under the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994, a rail organisation is accredited by the Department of Transport and Main Roads only if that operator has an appropriate safety management system in place and, more importantly, the competence and capacity to manage the railway safely. In view of those requirements, a rail organisation’s competence and capacity needs to be examined in the context of the complexity of its operations. The advantage of that approach is that it can be applied to all rail operators, including large complex organisations such as QR—which I spoke about before—through to the smallest of tourist or heritage railways. However, getting accredited is not the end of the regulatory process. In addition, the Department of Transport and Main Roads continually monitors all rail operators’ activities to ensure that appropriate safety outcomes are achieved. It also enforces compliance with obligations and duties. In addition, the department also investigates major rail occurrences and educates rail operators on potential opportunities to improve their safety performance, which is extremely important. To date, in Queensland the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 details these regulatory requirements. However, the time has come for the provisions contained in that act to be replaced by a dedicated new act dealing exclusively with rail safety. As such, it is considered that the measures contained in the Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 2010 will enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of current rail safety regulation in Queensland and further demonstrate this government’s commitment to long- term rail safety. The rail safety regulator presently possesses a full range of audit, inspection and enforcement powers. However, this bill will further enhance those powers while also putting in place an array of checks and balances to ensure that regulatory decision-making processes continue to be timely, transparent and nationally consistent. Another important aspect of the legislation is the provisions relating to interstate rail operators accredited in another state that may also wish to operate in Queensland, or vice versa. For instance, our very own QR is a prime example as it also needs to be accredited for its operations in other states. As such, it is a requirement under this bill for Queensland’s rail safety regulator to consult with rail safety regulators in other states where a rail operator is already accredited so that uniformity in decision 25 Feb 2010 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 585 making can be achieved. The various rail safety regulators will be required to work together to ensure that decision-making processes are timely, transparent and consistent between jurisdictions. Such uniformity in decision making will also promote cost savings to industry and increase operational efficiencies. I am very pleased to be able to say that the bill’s general safety duties provisions, based on the national model, have been developed to explicitly complement Queensland’s core occupational health and safety legislation, particularly the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995. In essence, these general safety duties define the required level of safety that must be maintained and make clear which parties have accountability for rail safety. As such, these statutory duties primarily encompass specific prescribed railway operations, primarily the movement of rolling stock on a railway and those activities that affect the safe operation or movement of that rolling stock. Such operations generally take place on or within the immediate vicinity of a railway track and do not include operations that take place in workshops or other workplaces away from the immediate vicinity of the track where the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 will continue to prevail. As a Queenslander, I am very proud of our safe rail network. I feel very secure in the knowledge that this bill will provide a range of contemporary regulatory measures to further improve rail safety. The bill will also recognise that the rail industry is not just a state based industry but an industry that operates Australia-wide. In fact, rail operators have long recognised that inconsistencies in the various state based regimes were impeding rail investment and operational efficiencies. As such, it should not be overlooked that this bill will also help to remove many of those inconsistencies and impediments. I commend the bill to the House. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—LNP) (4.24 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 2010. I am the son of a canecutter who then went on to become a locomotive driver and a navvy in the noncrushing season. So much of the conversation around my dinner table was spent around rail safety issues and the near misses that happen on our railway systems. The bill’s main aim is to provide for rail safety legislation as part of a nationally coordinated structure of rail safety laws. The bill does so by introducing general safety duties that require all rail transport operators and contractors performing railway prescribed operations to ensure the safety of those operations. I assume that all of those rail transport operators also include the mills within the Burnett and the Bundaberg districts—the Isis and the Bundaberg mills. The bill also provides assurance that rail transport operators are competent and capable of operating safely by introducing a system of accreditation. It introduces inspection and audit powers and also a range of checks and balances on regulated behaviour to ensure that the regulatory decision-making processes are nationally consistent, timely and transparent. The bill also provides a hierarchy of compliance and enforcement powers and authorisations to facilitate an effective and balanced regulatory response to detect forms of noncompliance by rail transport operators and other personnel. These laws in similar form have already been enacted in Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania and South Australia and are currently before the parliaments of the Northern Territory and Western Australia. In addition, these laws also address the problem of level crossing safety. This legislation includes a requirement for state and local governments, as well as private road owners, to enter into agreements with rail transport operators to address the management of level crossing safety. The Australian Transport Commission in its National railway level crossing safety strategy 2010-2020 estimates that there are around 100 incidents at railway level crossings throughout Australia every year and that, on average, these incidents result in 37 deaths per year. QR says that there have been more than 300 near misses at level crossings across Queensland alone this year. The ATC publication also states— After investigating 87 fatal Australian level crossing incidents, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau...identified the following key characteristics that require consideration: • In 66% of fatal level crossing incidents, the point of impact was the front of the train • Over 80% of fatal incidents occurred in daylight during fine weather, on a straight, dry road • More than 50% of fatal incidents occurred at crossings with active controls in place— and that is an issue that I will be referring to— • Unintended road user error accounted for 46% of fatal level crossing incidents. More recently the ATSB investigated 12 road vehicle and train level crossing incidents between 2006 and 2007, of these nine involved heavy vehicles. In total, 19 lives were lost and 60 injuries caused. The ATSB highlighted the growing trend in heavy vehicle and train collisions and the severe consequences that can arise from these incidents. The different levels of risk, divergent institutional arrangements and control systems between the road and rail networks heighten the complexities of developing coordinated strategies to improve safety. That is another reason why we have to pass this legislation and why I commend the government. The report states further— In addition, differences in jurisdictional governance and management regimes need to be addressed in the drive for national consistency and compliance with Railway Safety Legislation. 586 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 25 Feb 2010

The ATSB sums up the need for across-the-board laws by stating— It is vital that Australia has a transport system that is efficient, safe, sustainable and competitive in order to be a productive nation with a good quality of life and equity for everyone. I bring to the attention of the minister a sugarcane rail crossing in the Burnett that has a level of safety that concerns me. There have been a number of close calls and serious accidents. I table a newspaper article on 1 November 2007. Tabled paper: Copy of newspaper article dated 1 November 2007 titled ‘Lights will be upgraded following crossing mishap’ and letter dated 4 November 2007 from RJ McLucas to Mr Robert Messenger MP regarding a crash between a cane locomotive and a heavy vehicle [1787]. That article shows a graphic picture of a rail locomotive on its side, and also some overturned bins, after it had crashed into a truck. This Cordalba rail crossing is on the main highway between Bundaberg and Childers. I would appreciate it if the minister had the crossing inspected by her departmental experts and for that inspection report to be shared with me and the community. The rail crossing is in use only during sugar-crushing season and is operated by the Isis Central Sugar Mill. The problem I have with the Cordalba crossing is that in the past, when the cane was mature, tall and ready to be cut, road users approaching that crossing could not see the train with its bins until literally the very last few seconds. There are no boom gates on this main road crossing, only flashing lights. I have raised this situation with previous transport ministers. In a reply to me the former minister, Paul Lucas, wrote— Dear Rob Thank you for your representations on 5 July on behalf of Mr Robert McLucas about a cane level crossing near Cordalba. Department of Main Road officers met me some time ago with staff of the Isis Central Mill to discuss the operation of this crossing on the Isis Highway. As the cane railway crossing is controlled by flashing lights, it is not necessary for vehicle drivers to observe approaching cane trains. Visibility of approaching train assists with the safe operation of any crossing, but ‘active’ crossings (those with flashing lights) do not require visibility to approaching trains to function safely. One of the issues I have is that, because there are flashing lights on the highway, there is very little consideration given to drivers’ visibility of that train. At the moment the cane fields have gradually disappeared and around that crossing have sprung up fields of macadamia trees. We still have the same problem. A train with its bins approaching during crushing season will not be seen until literally the last few seconds. We have to rely on those lights operating. I have a technical background. In my early career I worked on all manner of Mirages and electrical equipment and I know how easy it is for electrical equipment to fail. There should always be a fail-safe, backup system. The best fail-safe system that I can think of is to actually have clear lines of visibility so that people approaching any rail crossing are able to clearly see, at least 100 or 50 metres before that railway crossing, if there is a train on that railway line. The minister continues— Mill representatives advised that the flashing lights at the crossing were functioning normally when the subject accident occurred, and normal advance warning signage was in place at the time of the accident. Subsequent to the accident, Main Roads officers designed a large red sign warning of the cane railway crossing ahead and the Isis Central Mill purchased two of these signs which are erected during the cane harvesting season each year. In the past 10 years there has only been one recorded accident at this crossing. The key word that jumps out at me in that sentence is that there has only been one ‘recorded’ accident at the crossing. I am aware of anecdotal evidence of many near misses. In considering the safety of a railway crossing the government relies entirely on those officially recorded accidents. There should be a method of calculating the number of accidents and near misses that are not recorded. Bob McLucas, the gentleman who had the accident, said that he was very concerned about the safety of other road users. He said— There is not a safety authority in the world that would sanction anyone driving a projectile weighing from 50 to 600 ton (a cane train) at speed, blind and oblivious past a wall into a crowded public highway. As the law protects their operation as everybody must stop for them. The concern I have with this particular crossing is that it is on a main highway. There is much use of that highway. The worst-case scenario would be for a tourist or, God forbid, a school bus to hit that crossing and hit a train at the same time. I would ask for the indulgence of the minister to review the findings of previous departmental investigations and to look at that particular crossing. In November 2004, not long after I was elected to this place, one of Queensland’s worst rail disasters happened. Thankfully there was no loss of life. The tilt train speared off the tracks near Rosedale. There were 163 victims, including staff and passengers. I remember going out to that site. It is worth while mentioning in this place again the magnificent effort that was displayed by the SES and various people who responded to that accident: from the Queensland Ambulance Service Commissioner Tim Higgens and Assistant Commissioner Murray Excel; from Queensland Health the Emergency Health Services Coordinator, Trevor Barnes; from Queensland Fire and Rescue Assistant Commissioner Ray Eustace—I think Ray has received a promotion since then which is well deserved; 25 Feb 2010 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 587 from the Rural Fire Service Ken Simpson, George Lloyd, Col Schafer and Bruce Johnston; from the Queensland Police Service Sergeant Lawrie Nash and Bundaberg inspector Mal Churchill, who has since retired; from Rosedale SES Vivian Brown, who was one of the first on the scene; and from the Miriam Vale SES Ivan Sbresni. The other thing that is worth mentioning in this debate is that the reason there was no loss of life was the skill of the engineers and the workers of the Maryborough factory who built the rail carriages. It needs to be acknowledged time and time again: because the integrity of those carriages was not compromised, none of them split open. That was one of the contributing factors to many people’s lives being saved. There was tremendous force applied to those carriages but they did their job and remained in shape and protected those 163 Queensland rail passengers and staff. It is worth mentioning at this time, too, the Gladstone Salvation Army members who received the call at 1.20 in the morning and arrived at the crash site at 3 am. They immediately had the sandwiches and hot coffee flowing. I managed to speak with crash victims of the tilt train disaster. There is a conversation that I will recount. It is important to debrief victims after an incident of that kind. I spoke with Dianne and Harry Page. I met them at the Bundaberg Airport as they prepared to fly home to Brisbane. They asked me to thank especially the Salvos. They said first of all that they felt very sorry for the train drivers and at that time they were holding no grudges and said sometimes accidents just happen. They described to me how for approximately an hour they lay in the pitch black of the tilt train wreckage and they desperately needed torches. It was so dark that the passengers could not identify emergency exit windows, which rescuers finally broke to allow crash victims to escape. I am a frequent user of the train service from Bundaberg to Brisbane. One of the pleasing things that I see as part of the safety induction video that is shown when one hops on the tilt train and the Sunlander is that emergency lighting has now been placed in all the carriages. That is largely due to Dianne and Harry Page bringing that up. I contacted the minister about it. He suggested that QR carry a store of torches. Well, they have gone one better and they have those glow sticks which could save lives in emergency situations. I note that there is an ongoing issue with the train drivers. Paula Doneman reported in an article in July 2005 that the driver of the train that derailed was suing Queensland Rail for at least $500,000. I do not know how that legal action turned out. I do know that 120 victims had received around $5,500 compensation. Before I close, I would like to mention to the minister the professionalism of the crew of the trains that I travel on. I am completely amazed and impressed by the level of professionalism and service that QR employees display all the time. They do a magnificent job—checking the tickets and making sure that everyone is safe and comfortably seated. It is a very pleasant environment and it is a great way to travel anywhere in Queensland. In fact, I am becoming quite a fan of rail travel. The trip from Bundaberg to Brisbane is about five hours, and I am able to sit down and prepare myself for the following parliamentary week. I want to raise one other issue relating to what I believe is passenger safety. There are a lot of passengers travelling from Bundaberg to Brisbane who need medical care. They are travelling to Brisbane to get all manner of operations. There are a lot of passengers who receive quite complicated procedures and are then quickly discharged from the hospital and undertake the train journey back to Bundaberg and other places along the line. Those passengers are very sick. They are at a heightened risk of having heart attacks or some sort of medical emergency. What I would like the minister and this government to think about is having a full-time nurse stationed on that train. I honestly believe that the overall level of passenger safety would be greatly enhanced and increased not only for the passengers but also for the staff if Queensland Rail looked at having a full-time nurse stationed on that train. I am sure that there are many instances where emergency situations arise with passengers travelling on that train. With those few words, I commend the bill to the House. Mr MALONE (Mirani—LNP) (4.41 pm): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 2010. I commend the minister for bringing this template legislation before the House. It is important that we have standardised legislation right across Australia. This bill forms part of a system of nationally consistent rail safety laws which are intended to improve rail safety performance in Australia by implementing best practice approaches to rail safety regulation and to deliver the highest degree of regulatory consistency across Australian states and territories. My contribution today will not necessarily be technical in nature, but I would like to raise some issues of safety right across the rail network in my electorate. Bearing in mind that the Moranbah coal line terminates at Hay Point, which comes in from as far out as Dysart; that there is the non-completed rail link to Abbot Point; and that there is a portion of the Blackwater-Gladstone rail line as well, I have a considerable amount of rail in my electorate. And of course the north coast rail line, the connection between the Gold Coast and Cairns, has been in existence for a long time. Over a number of years I have been in conversation with QR in respect of a number of occupational crossings that not only cross the two rail lines that are associated with coal but also the north coast line. In an area between Yukan and Jilalan there is a crossing by the name of the Gales that 588 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 25 Feb 2010

Mr Mervin and Val Keating have concerns with. In order to get their harvested cane across the line to a tramline siding on the eastern side of the line, they have to cross two coal lines and the north coast line. After extensive negotiation, which has never really gone anywhere, they are in a position where they have to have $50 million in public liability cover and whenever they are operating across those rail lines they have to put in place an observer. So for 12 or 14 hours a day some days during harvest they have to have a person there observing trains. The only other option that QR would negotiate was for them to go halves in the cost of boom gates. With the current cost of boom gates running between $500,000 and $600,000, one could well see that it is beyond their capability to fund boom gates. That situation has not changed. There are quite a number of crossings throughout the electorate that are very much in the same boat. It is a safety issue. It is a tremendously expensive safety issue. With the expansion of the coal lines and the number of trains increasing on the line, it is becoming more important and even more difficult for owners of properties, whether cane farms or cattle properties, to have access across the coal lines. With the possibility of new lines being built from the Galilee Basin, this is going to be an ongoing issue, bearing in mind that it is not only vehicle traffic having to cross those rail lines but also where the rail line dissects major properties, or even small properties for that matter. In a lot of cases it involves moving stock across those crossings. It is a significant issue. As I said, there has been ongoing discussion about how the management of these crossings takes place, particularly with regard to the movement of cattle. There is fairly good communication with the operations in Mackay to let the farmers know when they are able to access the crossing. They have to hold the cattle on one side of the line until they are given clearance to move the cattle across the line. It is an issue, and there are probably other members in the House who are dealing with these sorts of issues all the time as well. With the upgrade of the Jilalan workshops and yard at Sarina—most members would be aware that that issue was very prominent during the last election—there has been an ongoing issue particularly with the residents who live close by. The operations through that yard have extended quite significantly. With the growing tonnage of coal being moved from the hinterland, it is becoming a bigger and bigger problem. One of the issues is the upgrade from the 3100 locos to the 3700 and 3800 locos. Of course Pacific National’s 7100 locos are using dynamic braking. I will explain to members that dynamic braking is a new system by Siemens whereby, instead of using air brakes with brake pads on the wheels, they regenerate—they convert the motors back into generators—so that the power can be distributed back into the line. That has very significant savings for QR. Regeneration is a step forward, with less usage of power. There was some speculation that a loaded train, a loaded set, coming down the Connors Range could generate enough power to bring another empty train back up the range without any extra generation of power from the power stations. If that could be achieved, that would be a tremendous saving for QR and of course for the environment. One of the problems is that the dynamic braking generates huge amounts of power that at this stage cannot be successfully put back into the system. So they use rheostats within the confines of the loco to dissipate that power. To keep the locos cool enough so that they do not catch on fire, they have to be fitted with huge blowers. As the dynamic braking goes on to full power, the amount of air that has to be pulled through those rheostats is absolutely tremendous. The noise of that operation with the blowers is almost like a jet engine taking off. So imagine living alongside those lines. That is happening all the way along the line, but more importantly it is happening through residential areas close to Jilalan; in an extreme manner through Coppabella and the new subdivisions at Moranbah and Dysart; and to a less extent through Middlemount and also through Collinsville. I understand that once the system is fully developed and all the power can be regenerated back into the system, when the substations at Mindi, Bolingbroke and Hay Point are finally completed, the noise levels from the system will certainly reduce. The full operation of the dynamic braking will take effect. In the meantime, the residents at Jilalan have real concerns, including Ron and Marg and Lester Gurnett. Indeed, they are so concerned that they are looking at relocating their house. Wayne and Jenny and Glen and Mandy Schmidtke are very concerned about it as well. I have had numerous calls from people from Coppabella. Coppabella is a QR town; it is basically a dormitory town where people work shiftwork et cetera. You can imagine that the sound of these locos pulling in and taking off through Coppabella is quite extreme and very disturbing to the people who live and work there. I have previously talked to the minister about this and we are working through the issue. It is not something that can be addressed overnight, but I have spoken on behalf of the people who are impacted by it. It is probably a bit of a shame that we did not have the substations up to speed before we introduced the dynamic braking. In terms of safety and in terms of the possible sale of QR, and talking on behalf of the landholders and their occupational crossings and the ability of the new lines to divide property, I think we actually have to get back to a common-sense denominator where we try to run those new lines on an alignment close to the roads and we try to keep along boundary lines if possible. That will minimise the impact on people who have been there for a long time and who are trying to earn a living, sometimes under very difficult circumstances. I would like to commend QR for their understanding. 25 Feb 2010 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 589

Sometimes things get out of hand a bit, and I wish to refer to Mr Greg Lawrence, who lives at Gogango, which is west of Rockhampton on the Blackwater-Gladstone line. They had a meeting there 2½ to three years ago. Mr Johnson: That’s on our boundary, Ted. Mr MALONE: Yes, mate, right on the boundary. They had a meeting with a QR overseer and engineers with respect to a crossing on the line. His email states— It was decided by everyone at the meeting, which took place out at Rocky Dam itself, that there was to be a level cement crossing above the level of the pipes under the railway line. This would allow the pipes to take the normal flow and then any excessive flood water could run over the cement crossing without any damage to the road. The crossing was not completed properly and there was no cement crossing over the pipes, so after some rain the silt moved down on to the crossing and the only way the people there could get across that crossing was with four-wheel drives. That access is used by seven or eight property owners and, quite frankly, it is not good enough. I have referred the matter to QR and hopefully we can get that sorted with some more engineering there. I have referred that on and I am looking forward to a reasonable conclusion from that. As we move forward with the crossings—and I am really speaking about a lot of the occupational crossings—if there is a template that says there have to be proper lights or boom gates and the property owner has to fund half of that, I think that will push the envelope too far. Speaking on behalf of the property owners, I can say that that is not feasible. Either QR or the government has to come to its senses and contribute a little more to the overall operation. With those few words, I commend the bill to the House. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—LNP) (4.55 pm): It is with much pleasure that I rise to speak to the Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 2010. I support the shadow minister, the honourable member for Maroochydore, and the comments she made about the opposition’s opinion on the legislation. Rail safety is paramount, regardless of where it is. Here in Queensland we have nearly 10,000 kilometres of track. We can be fiercely proud of that track as it dissects this great state and supports many industries within this great state. This bill has been brought about by a model that has been developed by the National Transport Commission in conjunction with input from ministers from all jurisdictions. I think this is healthy, but at the same time I hope that the NTC understands and evaluates the difference in Queensland Rail compared to other state jurisdictions. I do not say that lightly, because Queensland certainly is different. I just listened to the contribution from my colleague the honourable member for Mirani, and he referred to many aspects of the rail network in his electorate. We talk about different areas. In the Wet Tropics, it is nigh on impossible to have an environment where we can boast a safe track operation 24/ 7, 52 weeks of the year, because of what happens up there. One thing that is not in question here is that our track and field personnel have provided a very safe environment and have worked to their fullest over a long period to uphold the standards and operations of Queensland Rail. I remember the Black Mountain disaster in Mirani a few years ago which was due to the collapse of the track as a result of the wet weather. We also have situations where we have soft patches, and those soft patches can happen at any time. A track will give way. Mr Hoolihan: How about Longreach-Barcaldine? Mr JOHNSON: I take that interjection. It is a good interjection, because at Christmas time we had about 15 inches there virtually overnight. That track between Longreach and Barcaldine was closed for a bit longer than a week. Queensland Rail personnel stacked that track with sleepers and got it operational; they worked in that black mud and against the odds. This is the type of personnel and the expertise that we have in Queensland Rail. They know how to address those situations. It is a bit like the Ergon and Energex crews that go out in the middle of the night to fix busted powerlines as a result of lightning, storms and tempests. As I said, in the electorate of Mirani and in the Wet Tropics, in Hinchinbrook, in Mourilyan and in those places further north right through to Cairns, the differences play a significant part in relation to rail safety. I hope the NTC realises with the introduction of these models that Queensland is different. I salute the work of former chief executives like Vince O’Rourke and Bob Scheuber and now Lance Hockridge in making sure that, while Queensland Rail is a narrow-gauge rail line, it is one of the world’s best practice narrow-gauge railway lines in the world. This track carries about 150 million tonnes of coal a year to the ports along the coast, at Gladstone, here in Brisbane and at Hay Point, Dalrymple Bay and Abbot Point. As far as the coal industry goes, those ports are very significant. The ongoing safety and viability of those tracks is paramount. I wish to touch on the issue of the rail transport operators that will continue to require accreditation so they can operate. This is a very important function of this legislation. We are now seeing third-party access into the Queensland Rail network. Operations like Pacific National are significant players on our track and significant players in the haulage of freight within this state. 590 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 25 Feb 2010

I know that the government’s policy at the moment is about selling off some of this infrastructure and the privatisation of these assets. But I say to the minister again today that it is very important that we pay attention to the roles that our track maintenance personnel have played over a long period of time and will continue to play in the maintenance and upgrade of our track. There are 10,000 kilometres of track across the state. It is not an easy job. In the north-west in places in the Mount Isa electorate, or the Dalrymple electorate or my own electorate, where there are probably some 1,200 kilometres of track, those people cannot do their job only in the winter time. They do it in the heat of the day. They are not easy places to work. They are very difficult places to work. In the middle of those tracks it is not 25 degrees or 30 degrees; it is more like 65 degrees. I think we should recognise the work that these people do. They are the ones who give the blood, sweat and tears to give us the satisfactory and safe environment of Queensland Rail track. The bill has requirements for the safe operation of railways in Queensland including specific plans and programs for security management. Again, this comes down to plain old common sense. When we look at the Bruce Highway progressing north to Cairns, we see railway lines crossing roads and roads crossing railway lines. Sometimes they are at right angles, and sometimes they are at acute angles. I do not care where those angles are. All the lights in the world are not going to take away from the responsibility of the driver of that motor vehicle in question. We see time and time again where the operators of Queensland Rail locomotives are blamed for some of these accidents. Anybody who drives a motor vehicle of any configuration knows that it is their responsibility to watch out for trains, whether there are lights there or not. Whether or not there are lights on a crossing, and if there are lights but they are not flashing, I still look both ways and see that the track is clear in both directions. I say to the minister that in the Northern Territory on Imparja TV I see time and time again wonderful ads about railway crossing safety. Don’t trust the lights every time, because at the end of the day if the lights fail then trains which might be carrying 5,000 tonnes of freight or 10,000 tonnes of coal cannot be pulled up in 100 yards or 200 yards like the ordinary family motor car can, or in some cases like a B-double or a semitrailer can. These locomotive engine drivers go through very stringent tests for colour blindness and for safety aspects. They have to pass the Farnsworth Lantern test. They have to pass the Ishihara colour blindness test to see if they are obeying the signals. I am not saying that we should subject all drivers to that, but a lot of problems that we see in relation to train disasters here in Queensland are caused by plain ignorance and stupidity on behalf of drivers of motor vehicles who do not look at what they are doing and do not look out for level crossings. I cannot emphasise that enough. I say to the minister that the general public needs to be made aware that we cannot spend millions of dollars on lights at crossings just because of some stupid idiot who will not look at what they are doing. I cannot emphasise that enough. I would like to pick up on one aspect which the minister has mentioned in her second reading speech. She states— An important highlight of the bill is the inclusion of ‘general safety duties’ that requires all rail transport operators and contractors who undertake rail safety work, for specific prescribed railway operations, to ensure the safety of their railway operations ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’. I would like the minister to further elaborate on that in her summing-up. I think at all times railway operations have to be very practical to ensure that they are absolutely safe, that the environment is right, and that there is no room for error so that we maintain that level of safety which we are fiercely proud of here in Queensland. I have stood in this chamber and criticised former ministers. I was a minister for transport in this state, too, and I know just how tough it is to try to keep this operation operational. If we are going to have a safe operation and we are going to have third-party players other than QR operatives, we need to be absolutely certain that those operatives, regardless of where they are and where they come from, are aware of the terms and conditions. Without elaborating too much, I want to finish by mentioning an issue which my colleague the member for Mirani has canvassed, and that is occupational crossings. I spoke to the minister just before my contribution about this very issue; namely, railway lines dissecting rural properties—whether farming operations or pastoral operations—on which there are crossing livestock or farm machinery. My case is more along the lines of what the honourable member for Mirani mentioned. I also highlighted to the minister the grave situation of how cattle where they walk across a false track can fill that false track with gravel or dirt, and in many cases that can cause a derailment. I think that with the understanding of both parties—of both the pastoralist or farmer and Queensland Rail—we can still work in unison to make certain that those occupational crossings can be kept operational. We can manage that in conjunction with understanding and responsibility from both parties. I will not elaborate anymore on that because my colleague the member for Mirani has already done so. I think that is something that we need to be observant of. There are two other things that I want to touch on quickly. I know that the Leader of the House is keen to see this legislation wrapped up soon. The exemption under clause 41 for private sidings is an area which I have some concerns about. I am more interested in Queensland Rail rolling stock. If those 25 Feb 2010 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 591 private sidings are not up to the standards of the Queensland Rail infrastructure and there is a safety issue there, I would like the minister to identify or illustrate how there can be any type of exemption if that is the case. The other issue is the power to seize evidence under clause 151. With regard to the power to support seizure and the power to seize evidence in clause 151, I would like the minister to identify and illustrate for the benefit of the House issues that could trigger such powers to be put into operation. Whilst this piece of legislation is driven by the National Transport Commission, it is important to remember—and I know the minister does, because I have spoken to her about it—that Queensland Rail operations are very different from any other jurisdiction within the Commonwealth of Australia because we have a narrow-gauge operation. We are operating big tonnages on the coal lines and the mineral lines of the Far North, and we are operating in some very difficult situations, especially in Wet Tropics areas where we cannot govern and we cannot build railway lines for 100-year standards because cyclones and such create an environment where it is logistically impossible. In monetary terms it is also impossible to build a railway line on that structure. Mr Cripps: Hundreds of bridges. Mr JOHNSON: Absolutely. It would cost multibillions of dollars. I come back to what I was saying about level crossings and what I was saying about the expertise of Queensland Rail personnel. Madam Minister, I hope we never see in this state the privatisation of our track and field maintenance, because these people are experts in their field. If we do not have those track and field maintenance people, we cannot get them to places like the honourable member for Mirani’s electorate or the honourable member for Hinchinbrook’s electorate when we have a big wet. We need those personnel on site to fix up and remedy the situation. Without saying anything further, I support the legislation. I trust that the minister might make reference to some of the comments I have made. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (5.10 pm): I rise to speak to the Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 2010 and thank the minister and her officers for the briefing that was afforded the Independents. I think it is always important to debate issues of safety. I also believe it has to be placed on the record that some operators—those outside government and big business—will find compliance difficult. I acknowledge the amendment that the minister has circulated, particularly in relation to concerns raised by the member for Nicklin. I have read the amendments. I would not like to be trying to write an exemption document for it. There are more ifs, buts and maybes in that amendment than I would care to hazard a guess. There are a couple of issues that I wanted to raise with the minister. I would like to confirm that this will not apply to railways that operate under a two foot gauge or a 600 millimetre gauge. Ms Nolan: That is right. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: In my electorate we have some rail enthusiasts. I have noticed over time that railway enthusiasts end up being railway tragics or railway obsessives. They are incredible people. We have a small group that run a scaled down model train at the historical village. They are there every markets. They run these steam trains on coal and all sorts of things. They provide a ride not only for the little kids but the kids at heart as well. They have clothing restrictions and footwear restrictions. The young ones have a ton of fun. I am pleased that they are exempt. Ms Nolan: Just to clarify if the gauge is less than 600 millimetres. Is that what you are saying? I just want to make sure we are both on the same page. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: Yes. Ms Nolan: If the gauge is less than 600 millimetres then you are out. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: This is definitely less than 600 millimetres—two feet. I appreciate that. I am sure there are a lot of hobbyists around who will be appreciative of that as well. We have the larger railways as well, like the Valley Rattler that is a tremendous tourism icon. I am sure that they would be keen to operate in a safe manner and I would hope that they have had discussions with the minister. I would seek clarification from the minister of a couple of things. In my electorate, and in many electorates, I have hundreds of QR workers, many of whom have worked for Queensland Rail all their working lives. They are historic QR workers. They have a great affection for Queensland Rail. I understand that no consultation was undertaken on the Transport (Rail Safety) Bill on the basis that there was extensive consultation prior to the introduction of the Transport (Rail Safety) Bill in 2008 which lapsed. At the time of that consultation, the Queensland Council of Unions, on behalf of rail industry unions, raised strong concerns about inconsistencies between it—that is the bill—and the state’s workplace health and safety legislation. The concerns primarily centred on the risk management principles and the onus of proof provisions within the current workplace health and safety legislation and the bill that was tabled in 2008, the Transport (Rail Safety) Bill. My question is: have those concerns been addressed in this new bill? I would appreciate the minister’s response to that. 592 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 25 Feb 2010

Part of the purpose of this bill is, firstly, to introduce general safety duties requiring all rail transport operators and contractors carrying out prescribed railway operations to ensure the safety of those operations as far as is reasonably practicable; secondly, to introduce a system of accreditation to provide a level of assurance that rail transport operators have the competence and capacity to operate in a safe manner before they are permitted to operate; and, thirdly, to introduce audit, inspection and enforcement powers enabling the rail safety regulator to monitor duty holders’ compliance with statutory duties and related accreditation requirements. When I read the intent of the bill it sounded very much like this bill is required to facilitate the sale of Queensland Rail. I would appreciate the minister’s clarification of whether this bill reflects on the proposal to privatise QR coal freight. Ms Nolan: No, it does not but I will elaborate. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: Thank you very much. Because that would certainly affect my electorate’s view on how I should vote on the bill. It is my understanding that with regard to the inspection and enforcement protocols the bill does not allow inspectors to access private dwellings without consent. I would ask for that to be confirmed. I understand that that is the situation with the legislation. I would also like placed on the record whether this bill—and I think the member for Gregory may have raised this or spoken about this issue—will impact on or reduce the number of occupational crossings? We had—I think it was when I was on council so it is a number of years ago now—QR do a sweep of the main line from Brisbane to Cairns. It closed a significant number of occupational crossings to the detriment of the landowners who normally used those crossings for cattle work and managing their properties. I would be interested to know whether this legislation will in any way impact on occupational crossings for landowners, whether it will lessen the number of crossings or place any financial obligation on the landowners. It is my view, as I think it is the view of the member for Gregory—I certainly do not want to put words into his mouth—that landowners adjoining railway lines should not have to expend money because their land has been identified for use as a rail corridor. This is particularly important in my electorate where new rail corridors have been identified. They are going to go through people’s properties, particularly grazing properties. In some instances, they cut the property off from water so there is additional work for the landowner to get stock to watering points. I do not believe at any point that it is acceptable that landowners should have to foot the cost of the railway being across their properties because usually they do not have any choice. Ms Nolan: This should not change anything in that regard but again I will elaborate. Mrs CUNNINGHAM: Thank you very much. I note that the railways that are not regulated are monorails, sugarcane railways and surface railways solely used for mining—that is particularly in the Weipa area because they are currently regulated under workplace health and safety legislation. The issue of rail safety is important. Our large and diverse state railway is one of the arteries that keeps our state operating and flourishing. Certainly it needs to be operated in a safe way whether that operation is by Queensland Rail or any other entity. I will turn to the reasonableness test which we raised in the briefing. The highlight of the bill is the inclusion of the general safety duties that require all rail transport operators and contractors who undertake rail safety work for specific prescribed railway operations to ensure the safety of their rail operations so far as is reasonably practicable. In seeking clarification of that, I was advised—if I understood it correctly; I do not want to misrepresent the minister’s advisers—that there would be consideration between the cost implications and managing risks. I would seek a clarification as to whether that is an accurate representation of the reasonably practicable test. I understand that the risk principle operates throughout the bill. On the basis of my contribution, I look forward to the minister’s response. I support the principles, but on those issues of privatisation et cetera I look forward to the minister’s reply. Ms van LITSENBURG (Redcliffe—ALP) (5.20 pm): I rise to support the Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 2010. This is an important bill because it provides for rail safety legislation that will form part of a system of nationally consistent rail safety laws. This legislation is about safety on the track and of rolling stock, particularly where it interacts with members of the public such as at level crossings. This legislation does not include safety issues in workshops or other workplaces away from the vicinity of the track. This bill builds on the existing co-regulatory approach so that the responsibility for developing, implementing and enforcing regulations is shared by industry participants, industry associations and both state and local governments. Queensland has an extensive rail system that operates in many high- risk urban areas, so it is vital that best practice is used in developing safety management systems for workers, particularly where rail crosses roads at level crossings and uncontrolled crossings. QR has a good safety record, and this bill enhances the safety systems further and will lock in our cross- organisation cooperation in implementing the compliance codes and associated national guidelines that are provided with this bill. 25 Feb 2010 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 593

The Labor government sees worker safety, along with job security, as our highest priority for workers, so this bill has a high priority for us. Because rail transport operators will now be required to consult with workers before establishing, reviewing or varying any safety management system, this bill gives workers some ownership of safety management systems. This is important since they are the people who are on the spot and they understand the dangers involved with their occupation as well as the level of safety they require. With this level of ownership in these safety provisions workers are more likely to abide by them, which will make them more effective. Because these safety management systems will be nationwide, workers will be able to move across the country and work under the same safety guidelines. The ability to issue improvement notices under this bill ensures that compliance with safety management systems will be high. At a time when QR is changing, corporatising and growing, it is a strategically sensible move to be aligning our safety legislation with that of other states and territories. It will facilitate more efficient and effective operations across the country and enhance the work and profitability of the organisation. Rail transport is convenient and effectively carries high numbers of commuters into densely populated areas. I look forward to the time when rail comes to my region as the population density increases. The Bligh Labor government has delivered record infrastructure, particularly in rail and transport over the past few years. Commuter trains have increased to a very high percentage and run very regularly in the south-east, and that is on top of the increase in buses and other commuter transport systems with the advent of TransLink. Public transport in Redcliffe has increased over 30 per cent over the past few years with the advent of TransLink. People in my electorate are very happy with that. That is what Queenslanders are looking for—more effective transport systems and more reliable and safe transport systems. The alignment of safety legislation with the legislation of other states is a positive step forward for Queensland transport systems. It demonstrates the Bligh government’s commitment to safety in not only rail but also other workplaces right across the state. We are a government that supports workers and the issues that are important to them. I congratulate the minister for her work on this bill and I commend it to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): I call the member for Hinchinbrook. Mr CRIPPS: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker— Ms O’NEILL: Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker; I am next. Mr CRIPPS: Mr Deputy Speaker, if— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do apologise, member for Kallangur. The member for Hinchinbrook was on his feet and had the call. Ms O’NEILL: No, I was. I was on my feet. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member for Hinchinbrook. Ms O’NEILL: Oh! Mr CRIPPS: Mr Deputy Speaker, I can withdraw in favour of the member if— Government members: Oh! Ms O’NEILL: Oh, Mr— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member for Kallangur. Ms O’NEILL (Kallangur—ALP) (5.26 pm): I really appreciate that. Thank you very much. I again say thank you. The new Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 2010 will further implement national reforms concerning rail safety into Queensland law. This new bill is commendable. It not only builds on the excellent rail safety mechanisms we already have in place in this state but it also confirms the Queensland government’s commitment to ensuring rail safety outcomes Australia-wide through national consistency of rail safety regulation and operational practices. Queensland has a very safe rail network. In fact, Australian Transport Safety Bureau data indicates that it is one of the safest rail networks in all of Australia, with major rail occurrences reduced by almost 20 per cent over the last 10 years. This excellent rail safety record has been gained amid enormous increases in population, rail freight and passenger patronage volumes. But, as we all know, there is always room to enhance safety. This not only attests to the effectiveness of Queensland’s existing rail safety measures but also reminds us of the popularity of train travel in Queensland. The new bill will further improve our safety performance and will enhance public confidence in the safety of rail transport in Queensland. Of course we cannot stop now. The need for further improvements to rail safety is highlighted by past fatal rail incidents such as those that occurred at Waterfall and Glenbrook in New South Wales and Kerang in Victoria. Such shocking tragedies remind us of the need to keep improving rail safety, both as regulators and as industry. The Transport (Rail Safety) Bill will be a key tool in aiding that improvement. 594 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 25 Feb 2010

As an integral component of an overarching rail safety reform package, the National Transport Commission, in consultation with rail safety regulators, industry, rail unions and other stakeholders, developed the national model bill which was approved by transport ministers through the Australian Transport Council in 2006. The national model bill includes a framework to strengthen the co-regulatory system for rail safety management. It aims to improve the safety of railway operations, manage or control risks associated with these operations, and promote public confidence in the safety of transport of freight or passengers by rail. The majority of provisions under the model bill have been adopted within this new bill. The new bill provides for related compliance codes, and associated national guidelines are currently being developed which will further guide the rail safety regulator’s requirements and behaviour and provide rail safety transport operators with a nationally consistent set of expectations regarding the processes to be followed. This new bill will enhance existing regulatory measures and strengthen through legislation current administrative rail safety practices in Queensland. I congratulate this government on this bill. It is important that Queensland has up-to-date rail safety legislation for the 21st century. Under the new bill, rail transport operators will continue to be required to gain accreditation before they can operate. This bill improves the current requirement to demonstrate competence and capacity to comply with certain administrative standards by clarifying the criteria for and purpose of such accreditation. The operator has to demonstrate competence and a capacity to manage risks to safety associated with the scope and nature of its railway operation. This is an enhancement of the current accreditation requirements and will facilitate greater transparency. Level crossing accidents pose the biggest risk to safe rail operations, with the possibility of catastrophic results. This bill also addresses safety at level crossings. For the first time in Queensland, legislation will require the state and local governments and private road owners to enter into agreements with rail transport operators as to how they will jointly manage level crossing safety. I believe that these requirements and all of the legislation’s other explicit obligations will further reinforce the safe running of Queensland’s railways. The bill will also contribute to addressing inconsistencies in jurisdictional regulatory regimes, which can impede rail investment and operational facilities. I support the bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! Before calling the member for Hinchinbrook, I would like to draw members’ attention to the fact that you obtain the call by rising to your feet and activating your microphone, despite what is on any list. I remind the member for Kallangur that the ruling of the chair is not open for discussion or argument. There is a procedure set out in the standing orders that one follows if one wishes to dissent from the ruling of the Speaker. I would also make the comment—and I thank the member for Hinchinbrook, because he did have the call—that in the instance where someone accepts the call, and I have taken advice in relation to it, the member for Hinchinbrook may very well under the standing orders have been forced to forfeit his right to speak because he had accepted the call. He followed what he thought was the correct procedure and he has the call now, but I would remind members that, if you are on your feet and your light is on, you will be called by the chair. Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (5.31 pm): Mr Deputy Speaker, please accept my apologies. Perhaps some of the fault lies with me in respect of that matter. I certainly have nothing but respect for the standing orders of the parliament. I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Transport (Rail Safety) Bill. The explanatory notes accompanying the bill state— The main purpose of this Bill is to provide for rail safety legislation that will form part of a system of nationally consistent rail safety laws. The Bill sets out legal duties and operating requirements that are to be applied on a nationally consistent basis to all parties responsible for rail safety and will underpin future national regulations, compliance codes and guidelines. The explanatory notes go on to assert that the proposed legislation— ... builds on the existing co-regulatory approach through the implementation of a number of regulatory best practices, including by clarifying the roles and duties of responsible parties, providing for more timely and transparent decision-making by Rail Safety Regulators, and equipping Rail Safety Regulators with the powers and tools they require monitoring and enforcing compliance with the legislation. My interest in this bill stems from remarks made by the Minister for Transport during her second reading speech when introducing this bill into the House whereby she made the following observation— Level crossing accidents pose the biggest risk to safe rail operations with the possibility of catastrophic results. The minister stated further— This new bill also addresses safety at level crossings. The bill proposes to require the state and local governments and private road owners to enter into agreements with rail transport operators as to how they will jointly manage level crossing safety. It will be no surprise to members that my interest in reforms proposing to improve safety arrangements at rail level crossings in Queensland relates to two tragic accidents at rail level crossings—one on 27 November 2008 and the other on New Year’s Day 2009, each of which involved fatalities in my electorate of Hinchinbrook. 25 Feb 2010 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 595

The first of these tragic accidents occurred at the rail level crossing at Rungoo on the Bruce Highway between Ingham and Cardwell on 27 November 2008. Tragically, two Queensland Rail drivers lost their lives when the tilt train collided with a southbound B-double truck. A subsequent investigation found that the truck had no mechanical faults or defects despite driving into the path of the northbound tilt train. The report also found that the tilt train had no faults or defects that contributed to the collision and that the advance warning signs, road pavement markings and the positioning of the level crossing flashing lights at the Rungoo level crossing were compliant with current relevant standards. The report found that the flashing lights at the level crossing operated for 26 seconds prior to the train reaching the crossing, as designed. However, the report found that vegetation on the north-eastern side of the level crossing impeded vision of the Bruce Highway to the north for a train approaching from the south. The report also said that the same vegetation impedes the vision of a driver of a southbound vehicle of a northbound train. Despite that, at the time I made the observation that the driver of a southbound vehicle should have regard for the warning signs and lights on the road approaching the rail level crossing—which were operational—not whether or not a driver can see a train coming. I agree with the findings of the report that praised the response by Queensland Rail staff on board the tilt train and the emergency services personnel who attended the scene of the accident and who provided timely and effective care to tilt train passengers. The report ultimately found that the B-double truck driver, although holding a current heavy vehicle licence, failed to stop at the level crossing. The report found that factors contributing to this failure to stop included the driver’s failure to observe the flashing rail level crossing lights and the low expectancy that a train was approaching. The report recommended improvements to the structural integrity of train cabs and allowing compulsory drug and alcohol blood testing of persons involved in road or rail accidents. Today, I invite the Minister for Transport to update the House on the progress made by her department in implementing these recommendations from the Rungoo accident report. I look forward to hearing from the minister in her summation at the end of the debate. The second of these tragic accidents occurred at a rail level crossing at Mundoo, south-west of Innisfail, on 1 January 2009. This accident, which involved a truck colliding with a southbound QR Sunlander service, underlined the need for individual motorists to take care at rail level crossings and for authorities to undertake safety upgrades and improve maintenance of warning signs. Tragically, the driver of the truck was killed in the accident. The report compiled after this accident contained a number of findings, listed factors that contributed to the accident and made a number of recommendations to improve safety at rail level crossings. I also invite the minister to advise the House of the progress made by her department in implementing the recommendations from the Mundoo accident report. Again, I look forward to hearing from the minister in her summation at the end of the debate. The investigation found that the operation of the train in terms of speed, the sounding of the locomotive horn and braking was appropriate and that the stop sign on the western side of the level crossing more than met the Australian standards. However, the approach warning signage for the level crossing on Aerodrome Road was not fully compliant with current standards and the road markings were in poor condition. There were no ‘rail’ or ‘X’ pavement markings on either side of the crossing, although these are not mandatory in all circumstances and were not mandatory on Aerodrome Road, which is the road on which the accident occurred. Regrettably, the investigation found that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident did not come to a halt at the stop sign and was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the collision. The report indicates that, had the truck driver come to a halt at the stop sign, he should have been able to perceive the oncoming train. These two accidents were a shock for all North Queenslanders. These two accidents prompted a number of level crossing upgrades across North Queensland. At this point I might say that I was pleased with the way in which the previous minister for transport responded to the two accidents in my electorate of Hinchinbrook. On both occasions he announced that a fully independent investigation would be undertaken, chaired by a representative of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. As I observed in this place following the first rail level crossing accident at Rungoo, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has for some time been calling for additional warnings for motorists approaching level crossings and the National Road Safety Action Plan in 2003 addressed the issue of level crossing safety. The Australian Transport Council has previously described railway level crossing crashes as one of the most serious safety issues faced by the rail system in Australia. As I have said before, I understand that funds and resources are finite and that competing priorities, including other transport safety initiatives, make addressing these issues problematic. However, I suggest that on the issue of level crossing safety Queensland is still behind, given the attention the issue has been given by national transport authorities for several years. I acknowledge, as the shadow minister for transport has acknowledged, that additional funding has been allocated to upgrading rail level crossings by the federal government through its Boom Gates for Rail Crossings Program. I understand that $42.7 million was allocated to upgrades for rail level 596 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 25 Feb 2010 crossings in Queensland, including eight in the electorate of Hinchinbrook. Could the minister advise of the progress of the upgrades of those rail level crossings under the federal program in my electorate of Hinchinbrook?

Other rail level crossings in the Hinchinbrook electorate were identified for upgrading as a result of the investigations conducted following the fatal accidents at Rungoo and Mundoo. I welcome the announcement by the Queensland Rail Level Crossing Task Force that safety upgrades for four rail level crossings in the Hinchinbrook electorate will be fast-tracked. Of the four level crossings identified in the Hinchinbrook electorate, three were located on the Bruce Highway between the townships of Cardwell and Ingham, including the rail level crossing at Rungoo where the accident had occurred between the tilt train and the B-double in December 2008. I would like to acknowledge that these rail level crossings have been subsequently upgraded. Interestingly, the then minister for main roads indicated that the upgrade of the northern section of the Cardwell Range would include a road bridge over the level crossing involved in the rail level crossing accident at Rungoo. Both the former federal coalition government and the federal ALP have made commitments to that particular project so it should be a priority for AusLink funding. I have recently heard the current Minister for Main Roads talking about the commitment of the Rudd Labor government to the upgrade of the northern half of the Cardwell Range crossing. This is a very important project for North Queensland which happens to be in my electorate. When I wrote to the Minister for Transport in December 2008 he advised me at the time that, whether or not the Rungoo rail level crossing was incorporated into the upgrade of the Cardwell Range crossing, achieving grade separation between the road and the railway line would in effect depend entirely on the amount of AusLink funding forthcoming for that project. I wonder whether the minister could advise whether enough funding will be provided by the Rudd government for grade separation at Rungoo as part of the upgrade of the Cardwell Range crossing in the interests of both road and rail safety given its recent accident history. I hope the fact that the Rungoo rail level crossing has already been upgraded to a boom gate and flashing light standard, in accordance with the recommendation of the Queensland Rail Level Crossing Task Force report, will not give the Rudd government or the Bligh government an excuse not to incorporate a road bridge separating the grade of the northern side of the Cardwell Range crossing. I look forward to the minister’s advice on that issue. While the report of the Queensland Rail Level Crossing Task Force identified eight crossings between Mackay and Cairns that were considered priorities for safety upgrades, there are 1,800 public crossings in Queensland and that means that there is much more work to be done in relation to rail level crossing safety in this state. The last issue that I want to canvass in relation to these two incidents and rail safety was a finding that was common to both the investigations completed following the accidents at Rungoo and Mundoo. The issue relates to passenger manifests. The report in relation to the Rungoo incident identified the matter as a safety issue, stating that the passenger manifest on the tilt train involved in the accident with the B-double did not contain all of the contact telephone numbers or addresses of the passengers. The report thought the issue was serious enough to include a recommendation that QR Passenger take action to ensure that as far as possible passenger train manifests are accurate in terms of names, addresses and contact telephone numbers of the people actually on the train. What this basically translates to is that QR did not really know who was on the tilt train at the time of the accident at Rungoo. This finding alarmed me at the time. In respect of the accident that occurred at Mundoo, the report similarly found that the manifest detailing the addresses and identities of passengers travelling on the Sunlander that collided with the truck on Aerodrome Road at the time of the accident was in the order of 54 per cent or 61 out of 112 passengers. My concerns were reinforced after the second incident at Mundoo. The problem only comes into focus when there is a serious accident or incident. I can fully understand that it would be terribly difficult for any sort of accurate passenger manifest to be kept for services like Citytrain that service communities in South-East Queensland. The sheer volumes of passengers involved would make it almost impossible. However, in respect of long-distance QR passenger train services to northern, central and western Queensland, surely we must be able to reasonably expect that QR will be able to know the identity of more than 54 per cent of its passengers on the train at any given time. I invite the minister to reassure the House that this issue concerning passenger manifests has been addressed following these two reports. Ms DAVIS (Aspley—LNP) (5.44 pm): I rise to make a brief contribution to the Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 2010, which was introduced by the Minister for Transport on 9 February 2010. The main purpose of this bill is to provide for rail safety legislation that will form part of a system of nationally consistent rail safety laws. The bill sets out legal duties and operating requirements that are to be applied on a nationally consistent basis to all parties responsible for rail safety and will underpin future national regulations, compliance codes and guidelines. 25 Feb 2010 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 597

It is appropriate to have consistency across jurisdictions in relation to rail safety. On a daily basis thousands of people interact with the railway systems that crisscross Queensland both as workers and as commuters and they expect and deserve protection from possible risk. In the second reading speech the minister spoke of a co-regulatory coordinated approach that would be based on the principles of shared responsibility. It is appropriate to consider shared responsibility in order to provide for the management of risks associated with railway operations and provide for the improvement of the safe carrying out of railway operations. The minister also said that level crossing accidents pose the biggest risk to safe rail operations with the possibility of catastrophic results. This new bill also addresses safety at level crossings. For the first time in Queensland, legislation will require the state, local governments and private road owners to enter into agreements with rail transport operators as to how they will jointly manage level crossing safety. It is in relation to these two points that I would like to speak about the most dangerous open level crossing in South-East Queensland, and that is the crossing at Telegraph Road on the north-eastern boundary of the Aspley electorate. I echo the sentiments of the shadow minister for transport and member for Maroochydore in her contribution today in respect of the seriousness of the situation at Telegraph Road. The shadow minister certainly understands the concerns of the local community on this matter and has inspected this dangerous intersection with me on two occasions, and I thank her very much for her interest. Members will have heard me talk about this dangerous crossing before in this House. I am happy to be afforded an opportunity once again to remind the government that the Telegraph Road rail issue is not going to go away any time soon. I last spoke in this House about this issue in September 2009 and little has changed in relation to safety. In response to a question on notice I asked in May 2009, the minister advised that from 1 May 2004 to 30 April 2009 there were 22 occasions where motor vehicles collided with the boom gates. These incidents have resulted in significant delays to motorists and rail commuters on the very busy Caboolture line. Herein lies the challenge. As the shadow minister mentioned in her speech, these new regulations mean very little without the backup of appropriate infrastructure spending. The minister will be aware that the Brisbane City Council released its business case for the elimination of this open level crossing last year. There was overwhelming support from the community for the project to proceed. The minister would also be aware that this project is one that would benefit not only people in the Aspley electorate but also residents and commuters who live on the north side of Brisbane. Brisbane City Council has indicated that it is prepared to contribute up to half the cost of this important piece of infrastructure. It understands a cooperative approach and has backed it up with a hefty financial contribution proposal. But this government is nowhere to be seen on providing the rest of the money to deliver this vital project. This can hardly be described as being based on the principles of shared responsibility that we are debating today. The government seems to be blatantly failing its legislation before it even starts. Indeed, the government has it on the backburner for review for 2015. These safety issues surrounding this rail and road crossing will only be exacerbated by any increase in train and vehicle movements surrounding the massive influx of residents into the Fitzgibbon UDA. During peak hour there are already 1,500 to 2,000 vehicles per hour travelling down the Telegraph Road corridor and up to 20,000 vehicles per day. Compounded with what will be a massive influx of 6,500 people into the Fitzgibbon UDA. This serious rail safety issue needs to be considered as soon as possible. I, like the member for Maroochydore, seek a program of works from the minister on when this important project will go ahead in light of this legislation. With consideration to the issues that I have raised, I commend the bill to the House. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—LNP) (5.49 pm): I want to speak about three issues of safety in relation to the Transport (Rail Safety) Bill. One is to do with the unloading and loading of goods at the Toowoomba railway yards. Another is to do with the safety and convenience of passengers travelling from Toowoomba to Brisbane. The final one is to do with some of the problems with the many level crossings through Toowoomba. With regard to the Toowoomba railway yards, just recently two workers were sacked and another three were casualised as we see a continual cutback in the number of staff employed at the yards. It is an area where you do need supervision and safety, particularly as much of the loading and unloading takes place in the evening. I believe that what is being done is some sort of precursor to the break-up and change in structure of Queensland Rail as it moves towards privatisation. When we hear all of these promises of jobs and then we see jobs of workers being cancelled out or casualised, it is very concerning. It is also concerning when those jobs are involved with the heavy loading and unloading that occurs at those goods yards, particularly in the evening and at night, because of the trucks coming in from QFleet and so forth that necessitate coordination and supervision. With regard to passenger safety, in Toowoomba in 1944, 40,000 to 50,000 people travelled on the train to the Toowoomba Railway Station. I know that times have changed dramatically. But you would be lucky to have 40 people travel by train in a year now because the railway station is on the outskirts of the city at the abattoir. So if someone wants to go to Brisbane by train, there are only two services a week. 598 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 25 Feb 2010

You have to get on to the train that is coming from Charleville to Brisbane. Then you cannot come back that day; you have to come back the next day. You have to get out to the station at some ridiculous hour to get on the train. The station is well-enough lit, but it is at the abattoir on the edge of the town. There is absolutely no incentive for people to use the train, aside from the fact that there are only two services a week. What is needed for the convenience and safety of people who wish to travel to Brisbane—and there are many particularly pensioners, businesspeople and people wanting to go to Brisbane in the course of their day to go to doctors or visit friends and so on—is a park-and-ride system where people could drive to Helidon and use a reasonable, modest train service that would run from Helidon to Brisbane. It would have to be a diesel-electric, but it could then stop at Gatton, Laidley and Ipswich. No doubt it would be full by then. It would add to the service that is provided. Unless we start to move towards providing a service, no-one is going to use it. People use the bus service, which meanders in and out through the different areas along the way down to Brisbane, and people drive. But there is only one way to encourage people to use a train service and that is to put a service in place. I know that it would cost many millions, if not billions, to upgrade the line to bring it up the range to Toowoomba. But that has to be a target because we are going to be a city of 200,000 people by 2031. That is the projection in the South-East Queensland plan. I think moves should be made immediately to upgrade the rail service at least to Helidon and have a park-and-ride there so that Toowoomba people going to Brisbane on a daily basis can access a train from there. It would also be good for Toowoomba people to have access to the go card. They have access to it at Gympie and that is further away from Brisbane than Toowoomba. Yet Toowoomba does not have access to the go card. Finally, we have a real issue with the trains coming through from Brisbane. There is a big loop line for those coming from the west where they have to cross a number of roads. A grain train going south to Warwick and Goondiwindi has to go through the CBD and cross many of the streets. It crosses James Street, and that is one of the busiest roads in Australia. James Street carries 4,000 B-doubles a day. It is an absolute shame and disgrace that the Toowoomba bypass is not in place or that the government cannot make it the No. 1 priority, because this main road through Toowoomba, with 16 sets of traffic lights, is carrying the heaviest freight load of any road in Australia. To add to the dangers, Queensland Rail is unable to carry the grain harvest, so during the peak of the grain harvest there is 10,000 tonnes per day of grain in extra trucks—that is about another 300 trucks a day—going through 16 sets of traffic lights on the main east-west road of the city, on top of all the trucks carrying coal because Queensland Rail cannot carry the coal, either. In the interests of the safety of our city, we do need the Toowoomba bypass so that we can get the B-doubles out of the city. It would certainly make it a lot safer when trains are going through these level crossings in the city—that is if we can ever get enough trains to carry this grain, which is an important export, and the coal, which is an important export. Both of them contribute greatly to the economy of this state. That issue certainly needs to be addressed. They are the three issues that particularly concern us in Toowoomba at the moment. Hon. RG NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (Minister for Transport) (5.55 pm), in reply: I thank all members for the quality of the debate we have just had in relation to this bill. There is no doubt that anything to do with railways stirs up a level of interest and passion in the community generally and certainly among members of this House. But I think it is fair to say that this has been a really considered debate, and a number of members have made really interesting and I think very good points. So I will seek as best I can in the time available to respond specifically to the many questions which have been asked of me as this debate has proceeded. The broad purpose of this bill, as members know, is to ensure a high standard of safety on all of the state’s railways and to do that through the implementation of a nationally consistent mechanism, a nationally consistent model bill. As has been acknowledged both in my second reading speech and subsequently in the member for Maroochydore’s comments, Queensland has had quite a rigorous rail safety regime in the past but it has not been codified in a single piece of legislation. So this bill will have the effect of both bringing all of our rail safety legislation into one clear place and ensuring that we are consistent with Australia more broadly as part of the federal government’s move to nationally consistent economic regulation. I think most members agree that that is in itself a good thing. The bill creates general safety duties which are applied to rail operators, be they very big operations like Queensland Rail and Pacific National or much smaller operations like some of the tourist and heritage railways that we see around the place. In total, there are around 38 railways currently accredited. In future, that number will remain the same, with the addition through this legislation for the first time of the many private sidings that we see across the state. Because bringing in the sidings is a reasonably big job, there will be a transition phase. Those general safety duties are codified in the bill but they relate to things like health and fitness of your workforce, fatigue and drug and alcohol management, again, of your workforce. It is quite obvious what those general safety duties are. 25 Feb 2010 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 599

The safety standard in the bill is that the rail operator must ensure so far as is reasonably practicable that safety standards are met. There is in relation to that no reverse onus of proof as is currently the case, for instance, in the Workplace Health and Safety Act. A number of members touched on—and the member for Maroochydore was the first—what exactly that means and how therefore this legislation intersects with other acts. The member for Gregory I think made a good point. He essentially asked: is an obligation to ensure that safety standards are met so far as is reasonably practicable high enough? The question he was asking is: should the safety standard not be an absolute standard? The response to that very good point is that the notion of ensuring safety so far as is reasonably practicable is a well accepted one in legal parlance. If the standard was absolute, it might be possible to argue that the safest thing you could do with your trains would be to leave them in the shed. So a standard to run a railway so far as is reasonably practicable does have a legal meaning in itself. The question then becomes: how does the reverse onus of proof work? The member for Gladstone touched on this matter as well. She quite rightly raised the point that some of the rail unions had been concerned that when the bill was first introduced in 2008 it did not incorporate a reverse onus of proof. At that time, the unions’ concern was considered by government to be quite legitimate. While the old legislation did not have a reverse onus of proof, it is the case that in the current Queensland workplace health and safety law the onus of proof is reversed. The unions’ concern was that you would then get an inconsistency between the rail safety legislation and the workplace health and safety law. Members would be aware, firstly, of a recent High Court case, and I cannot remember which member alluded to that. More to the point, members would be aware that most Australian jurisdictions—I am not sure whether Western Australia is in or out—recently signed up to a national model workplace health and safety law and that when that legislation is implemented in Queensland it will not include a reverse onus of proof. That is a reform which Julia Gillard has led as part of the Rudd government’s commitment to a nationally consistent workplace health and safety law. The standard in this is so far as is reasonably practicable and no reverse onus of proof. For the short time before the implementation of the national model workplace health and safety law, that will mean there is an inconsistency between the two, but the workplace health and safety law will then change to this standard so there will be a consistency between the two. In response to the member for Gladstone’s point, I can say that the relevant unions are well aware of that change. Members opposite, starting with the member for Maroochydore, also raised quite a legitimate point about the very many occupational crossings which in many cases are on private land between roads and the railway line. This bill codifies a higher standard for safety on level crossings. Right now, there is an acceptance that both the owner of the road, be it a private or a public road, and the owner or operator of the railway share a responsibility for safety on the level crossing. To this point, that responsibility has been enacted through memoranda of understanding between QR and Main Roads and between QR and the Local Government Association of Queensland. This bill goes further in that it codifies that shared responsibility. That will not, in practice, make a real difference to people, for instance, who have a dirt road through the middle of their property which crosses a railway track. It will continue to be the case that there will be a cooperative approach between those two parties. The member for Maroochydore specifically asked this question: once part of the current QR network is privatised, will the state continue to have an oversight role in cases where individuals feel the rail operator is perhaps being a little heavy-handed? The answer to that question is yes. There will still be a role for the state in that regard. The member for Maroochydore then went on to ask how it will work when a rail safety regulator—which will be in South Australia—is established and whether it will make a difference for those people. The answer to that is that that is not the subject of this legislation. While this legislation creates a national model system of regulation, we still have the Queensland regulator, so that will be a question for the next round of legislation when we actually enact the single national office. Nonetheless, I think it is a reasonable point and we will have to look to ensure that there is still protection for those landholders when that next step is taken. The member for Gladstone asked whether this legislation in any way facilitates the upcoming asset sale of parts of Queensland Rail. The straight answer to that is no. As the member said in acknowledging the unions’ earlier concern, this legislation was imagined well before that decision was made, and the purpose of it is to simply ensure national consistency. So this legislation would be the same, regardless of who was the owner. Nonetheless, a number of members—most notably the member for Dalrymple, who was backed up by the member for Toowoomba South and the member for Gregory—made the really good point that track workers on the network do an extraordinary job in maintaining the high quality of our rail network, sometimes in really difficult circumstances. I want to acknowledge the truth of that. There was some concern about whether that would change in a new environment, so I also want to make the point that the government’s decision in relation to asset sales means that 80 per cent of Queensland’s rail network will be staying directly in public hands through the Queensland Rail government owned corporation. 600 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 25 Feb 2010

Those workers will continue to work for the government through Queensland Rail. For the workers who they talked about who are largely in Western Queensland, there will be no change unless they are specifically on the coal network. I do not think that was well understood in the debate. There were also questions about how seriously this legislation would impact on volunteer railways, specifically some of the backyard operations that do not involve members of the public. I give notice now that I will move some amendments suggested by the member for Nicklin to basically exempt backyard railways that do not have public access. The member for Maroochydore asked how this Queensland legislation will be different from the national model bill, and the answer is that it was not different until I agreed to accept those amendments. Those amendments are modelled on South Australian models, so everybody except South Australia and us will include backyard railways. Because we are not seeking to put an imposition on people who do not actually involve members of the public in their rail operation, there will be a variation from the national model when we pass those amendments. Many members raised local issues about railways. I will not respond to all of them in detail, but I will make a few broad points. The member for Burnett spoke about a specific level crossing in his electorate. I wish to advise him that because that level crossing is on a cane railway it is not the subject of this legislation. That is regulated under workplace health and safety because that level crossing is on a main road, but I am happy to refer his concern to the relevant minister. The member for Indooroopilly tried to argue—and the Deputy Speaker let him get away with it—that the height of the platform at Indooroopilly station was a rail safety matter and therefore entirely relevant to this bill. It was probably a stretch, but nonetheless I am very happy to have the opportunity to respond. The member for Indooroopilly has run a campaign over a period of time now to argue that there is a problem with the gap between the platform and the train at the Indooroopilly Railway Station. The member for Indooroopilly has been told over and over again that that is unfortunate and acknowledged but inevitable because the Indooroopilly Railway Station is on a curve. If the platform and the train were at the same height, then the train would crash into the platform, which probably would not be a great improvement on the current situation. Nonetheless, he has persisted in raising this point. I think the real question here is: is it a matter of costed opposition policy to move all of the many railway stations across the Citytrain network which are on a curve? As of yet I have not had an answer in that regard. Nonetheless, I would make the point that, since the Indooroopilly Railway Station was upgraded in November 2008, about 1½ million people have used it. While any incident is regrettable, the sum total of the issue which the member for Indooroopilly raises as a massive issue of public safety concern was as follows: one person fell because they had a seizure—obviously not because of the platform; one report of a person who was assaulted—obviously that is problematic but not a result of the platform; two people have fallen while running through the subway and up the stairs—unfortunate but not because of the platform; and three people out of 1½ million have injured themselves when embarking their respective trains, and so we could argue that the platform height may have been an issue in that regard. I think members should understand that what the member for Indooroopilly is arguing for is a commitment that would cost hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to move all of the platforms that are on a curve, because since November 2008 three people out of 1½ million have experienced some injury in that regard. It is a fair point, but it is a big call to make. A couple of members, including the member for Aspley, raised the issue of level crossings generally. The member for Hinchinbrook asked where the current level crossing upgrade program was up to. I can advise that updates are being regularly provided on the DTMR website, so he could get some of that stuff there rather than my running all the way through it. Similarly, I am advised that updates about the response to the two fatal accidents in his electorate are being loaded onto the website reasonably regularly. In response to that specific issue about manifests, again I am advised that QR is improving its processes around manifests and that the office of the rail safety regulator in my department is overseeing that process. To go back to level crossings more broadly, it is the case that there are a number of level crossings in the south-east and that some of them have become a matter of political debate. The member for Aspley has been critical for some time now of the state government for not upgrading a level crossing at Telegraph Road at its own expense. I would make this point. We are doing quite a substantial body of work to improve level crossings in South-East Queensland. The state government has recently spent $113 million including $25 million from the Australian government for the grade separation of Beaudesert Road and the interstate line at Acacia Ridge. We have also spent $68 million to eliminate the level crossing at Mawhinney Street, Beerwah—a project that was recently completed. While some members on the LNP side are saying that level crossings are dangerous, it is notable that, when the Beerwah level crossing was completed in the electorate of the member for Caloundra, the member for Caloundra ran a community campaign to keep the level crossing open because he said that was more convenient for the community. Ms Male interjected. 25 Feb 2010 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 601

Ms NOLAN: That is despite the fact that this was a crossing on which a child riding or pushing his bike had been injured. There is not a great deal of consistency about where we stand on whether you want to build overpasses or level crossings. Nonetheless, it is worth noting, I think, that in relation to the level crossings that LNP members are raising, a number of them are the subject of unfulfilled 2004 Brisbane City Council LNP election commitments. In the 2004 election, the then Liberal Party committed that, if elected, they would upgrade the Newman Road-Robinson Road rail crossing as a matter of urgency; they would improve vehicle and pedestrian safety at the Banyo level crossing; and they would build a flyover for the Lindum level crossing within four years. In addition to these three crossings they said that they would investigate building overpasses and tunnels including at the junction of—wait for it—Lacey and Telegraph roads, Bracken Bridge and Beams Road, Carseldine. The reason that these level crossings are the subject of some community debate is that the LNP made commitments to build level crossings at them, but in all of these cases they have not done so. Five years later there is no overpass at Lindum or Carseldine. No practical action has been undertaken at Banyo. It is the fact that the BCC has submitted a business case for the Geebung project, but you could hardly say that that was submitted as a matter of urgency—which was the commitment made— given that it is now 2010, and they only delivered a business case for Telegraph Road in September. The member for Aspley is out there running this campaign against the state government for its inaction on resolving this level crossing, and I totally acknowledge that it is a busy level crossing and it would be a good thing, if financially viable, to do something about it. But in running this local campaign she is failing to make the point that it was something that the now Lord Mayor promised to do five years ago. During those five years they have certainly not delivered an overpass. Indeed, it took them five years to produce a business case which they then asked the state government to fund. I table the documents pertaining to those previous commitments. Tabled paper: Bundle of documents relating to rail crossings [1788]. I acknowledge that there are other matters that I have not touched on, and I am happy to speak to those members privately. For example, the member for Mirani talked about rail noise at Jilalan and there were some other points, but I think that essentially sums up the debate and I thank members for their participation. 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— Ms SIMPSON (6.18 pm): I note the comments of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee in regard to this clause, a number of other clauses—namely, 10, 22, 258, 259, 275 and 346—and schedule 3. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee remarks on the introduction of temporary regulations having the potential to seriously undermine the powers of this parliament. I note that the explanatory notes state that these provisions are made less objectionable as they would only apply for 12 months. However, this is a mechanism which lacks consistency with fundamental legislative principles. It is of concern that it is a breach of those principles. I certainly seek the minister’s advice as to why she has sought to do this. Ms NOLAN: I thank the member for Maroochydore for flagging this in her contribution to the second reading debate. The member for Maroochydore is right. There is the capacity within this bill for nationally consistent standards to be regulated for rather than included in the legislation when we are trying to get something nationally consistent in place in a hurry. It is worth noting that such provisions would expire after 12 months. So we cannot do that forever. We would have to come to the parliament and amend the act itself. I understand that that is not an unusual circumstance. There may be something that comes up in future where we need to ensure national consistency. I cannot imagine that that is a provision that would be routinely engaged because of the supremacy of the parliament. But that is the reason for it. While I acknowledge the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s report, I am advised that that is not in itself unusual. Ms SIMPSON: I refer to clause 5 which relates to the application of the act and the types of railway lines that would or would not be included in the definition of this act. At 2(h) it states— (h) a railway, or a class of railway, prescribed under a temporary regulation to be a railway to which this Act does not apply. I note the amendment that has been put forward by the member for Nicklin to capture backyard railway lines which is an interesting definition. A new definition is backyard railway line. It means those railway lines that are privately owned and are not there for the purpose of freight or passenger 602 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 25 Feb 2010 movements. Why does this particular clause not capture what is now included within the amendment given that we have a proposed subsection there that allows for a railway prescribed under a temporary regulation to be a railway to which this act does not apply? Ms NOLAN: I will have to make sure I understand the member correctly. I am happy to respond correctly. I am not 100 per cent sure I am understanding the question, so I am sorry if I get it wrong. The national model law does include backyard railway lines and such things do exist. They are reasonably small. They will be run by someone as a hobby. They do not carry freight and they do not carry passengers. As such they are clearly not creating any risk to a member of the public. Nonetheless, it would be hypothetically possible to argue that, having exempted them through the act that we will finish with, we might want to use this provision to bring them in. It would again hypothetically be possible to do that for a short period of time before we had to legislate to make that a permanent change. That would be an instance where we would be including a new railway, which is not in the standing Queensland act to ensure national consistency. Of course we could only do that for a maximum of 12 months and then we would have to go back and amend our act. I think that is something that is not going to happen because we are quite deliberately exempting those railways from the provisions of this bill. Frankly, it is hard to see a circumstance in which a whole new class of railway is going to come in and that that is going to happen through a regulation prior to us coming back and legislating for that through the House. Hypothetically, if I am understanding the member correctly, I can see that that could happen. Ms SIMPSON: I am happy to clarify the question. The question really related to this particular clause. I would have thought that it was already captured. The minister has obviously looked at the legislation and realised that there may be some circumstances where privately owned or hobby rail was not captured and this is to provide the clarification of the subsequent amendment to clause 41. In the briefing we asked about some types of private rail not being freight or passenger. For clarity of the application of the act I understand that it was not sufficient to capture those particular examples and that is the reason the minister is coming forward with the amendment. Ms NOLAN: The answer is not really. What the model bill does is regulate pretty much everything, but obviously not railways with a gauge of under 600 millimetres and not the sugarcane railways which come under workplace health and safety. As a result of our amendment, our legislation will not do backyard railways either. As the member knows, this provision is not just part of our legislation; it is part of the model bill. It is hard to give a real example. Should it be decided on a national level that there is some additional kind of railway that should be consistently regulated—and in that regard the backyard ones are not a good example because we are not trying to put them in; we are trying to take them out—and we want to do that urgently, we would do it through the application of this provision and then we would subsequently have to come back and legislate. As I have said, I am finding it hard to imagine a circumstance in which that would be applied, but I can understand the wisdom of the NTC in putting together this model—that it does want to create a provision for regulating railways that were not envisaged and to do that reasonably urgently on a nationally consistent basis if needs be. That is not the backyard ones because rather than putting them in we are taking them out. That is why that is there. Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Clauses 6 to 30, as read, agreed to. Clause 31— Ms SIMPSON (6.28 pm): This particular provision relates to the Criminal Code. It means that sections 23 and 24 of the code do not apply to an offence under this division. This has also been noted by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. Could the minister please explain why some defences in the Criminal Code will not apply under this bill? Ms NOLAN: There are two reasons. The first, and I think most relevant, is that there are other provisions in the bill that replicate clauses 23 and 24. So it is not that one would get away with it completely; it is that it is elsewhere. Secondly, this is consistent with workplace health and safety law. Ms SIMPSON: I quote from the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s concerns where it said— Clause 31 may affect rights and liberties of individuals as it would provide that some defences in the Criminal Code would not apply to offences in part 3, division 3 of the legislation. Clause 31 states that the Criminal Code, sections 23 and 24 would not apply to an offence under the division regarding rail safety duties of rail safety workers. The sections of the Code respectively excuse criminal responsibility for: • an act or omission which happens independently of a person’s will or for an event which occurs by accident; and • an act or omission done under an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief in the state of things. The legislation provides instead for specific defences applicable to the offences in part 3, division 3. The explanatory notes contain information in this regard (at 8): This clause potentially breaches the fundamental legislative principle that legislation should not reverse the onus of proof in criminal proceedings without adequate justification ... 25 Feb 2010 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 603

I seek the minister’s clarification as to whether it is a complete replication of the defence. Given that the minister has just said to the House that the defence is elsewhere in the act, is it exactly the same defence? Ms NOLAN: Yes, it is. Clause 31, as read, agreed to. Clauses 32 to 35, as read, agreed to. Clause 36— Ms SIMPSON (6.31 pm): Minister, we talked about changes with regard to reverse onus of proof. I particularly draw the minister’s attention to this section of the report as the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee still raises issues with regard to the way the onus of proof would be prosecuted. The evidential onus of proof will rest with the defendant. While I note that the persuasive onus remains with the Crown, I ask: has this taken sufficient consideration of natural justice in this reversal of a fundamental legislative principle? Ms NOLAN: That is essentially the standard onus of proof. The Crown has to prove that a person did it and they have to argue their case that they did not. As I acknowledged in my summing-up, that has been a matter of some discussion in that there will be a period of time during which there is some inconsistency between this and workplace health and safety until workplace health and safety similarly adopts that standard onus of proof. But the standard onus of proof is what it is. Ms SIMPSON: The report of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee states— Clauses 36 and 37 would prescribe matters that may be proved by a person in defence of proceedings for a contravention of duty (part 3, division 3). Accordingly, an ‘evidential’ onus of proof would rest with the defendant, but the Crown would retain the ‘persuasive’ onus as to whether the commission of the offence was made out on the evidence. Where legislation may infringe the fundamental legislative principle regarding onus of proof, the committee considers information provided regarding justification for any reversal of the onus. In respect of clauses 36 and 37, the explanatory notes state (at 8) that the clauses: … give rail safety workers a set of defences, including defences for taking reasonable precautions and exercising proper diligence and defences relating to causes over which the worker had no control. This approach is consistent with the approach taken for similar obligations in the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 and other Queensland safety-related Acts. The point is that, according to the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s report, it does not see a complete removal of these reverse onus of proof provisions. There is still an onus with the defendant with regard to an evidential onus of proof resting with the defendant. Minister, will there be further amendments to this act to amend this provision? Ms NOLAN: I note the committee’s report, but I can only reiterate my advice that this is a standard onus of proof and that it will be a matter for the workplace health and safety legislation to, in its time, become consistent with this. Clause 36, as read, agreed to. Clauses 37 to 41, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Ms NOLAN (6.36 pm): I move the following amendment— 1 After clause 41 Page 47, after line 21— insert— ‘Subdivision 3A Exemption for particular railway operations on application ‘41A Exemption may be granted ‘(1) The chief executive may exempt a person from the requirement to be accredited for railway operations, on or at a private isolated railway, of a stated scope and nature that are proposed to be carried out by or on behalf of the person. ‘(2) For subsection (1), the stated scope and nature of the railway operations includes— (a) the railway operations for which the exemption is granted under subsection (3); and (b) details of the nature of the railway operations mentioned in paragraph (a), including, for example— (i) the location of the railway operations or the rail infrastructure to which the railway operations relate; and (ii) for railway operations relating to rolling stock—the type of rolling stock that can be used for the railway operations or the type of traction system that can be used for the railway operations. ‘(3) An exemption under subsection (1) may be granted for 1 or more of the following— (a) all or stated railway operations on or at a stated private isolated railway; (b) a service or aspect, or part of a service or aspect, of stated railway operations on or at a stated private isolated railway; (c) construction of stated rail infrastructure for a stated private isolated railway; 604 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 25 Feb 2010

(d) an activity that is part of railway operations on or at a stated private isolated railway, including, for example, the following— (i) site preparation; (ii) restoration or repair work; (iii) testing of a railway track or other rail infrastructure; (iv) another activity considered appropriate by the chief executive. ‘41B Application for exemption ‘(1) A person may apply to the chief executive to exempt the person from the requirement to be accredited for railway operations, on or at a private isolated railway, of a stated scope and nature that are proposed to be carried out by or on behalf of the person. ‘(2) The application for the exemption must— (a) be in the approved form; and (b) state the scope and nature of the railway operations for which the exemption is sought. ‘(3) The chief executive may, by notice, require the applicant— (a) to supply further information; or (b) to verify by statutory declaration any information supplied to the chief executive. ‘41C What applicant must demonstrate and conditions that may be imposed ‘(1) The chief executive may grant an exemption under this subdivision, with or without conditions, to the applicant only if the chief executive is satisfied that granting the exemption would not be likely to create risks to the safety of the railway operations greater than that which would be the case if the applicant was required to be accredited for the railway operations. ‘(2) In making a decision under subsection (1), the chief executive must have regard to the following— (a) the scope and nature of the railway operations; (b) for railway operations relating to the operation or movement of rolling stock on a railway track— (i) whether the rolling stock is to move on the railway track during daylight hours only; and (ii) the speed at which the rolling stock is to move on the railway track; and (iii) whether there is to be more than 1 rolling stock moving on the railway track at the same time and, if so, whether the rolling stock will cross on the track; and (iv) whether any members of the public will be at or near the railway track while the rolling stock is moving on it; (c) anything else the chief executive considers relevant. ‘(3) For subsection (1), the chief executive may impose on the exemption a condition about the safe construction, maintenance or operation of— (a) rail infrastructure for the railway operations; or (b) rolling stock used as part of the railway operations. Note— This subsection empowers the chief executive to impose conditions about the safe construction, maintenance or operation of rail infrastructure or rolling stock used in railway operations the subject of an exemption under this subdivision because divisions 3 to 5 (which include requirements about safety management) do not apply to the railway operations. However, a rail transport operator carrying out the railway operations, or a person carrying out the railway operations on behalf of a rail transport operator, is also subject to rail safety duties under part 2, and obligations about safety under the Workplace Health and Safety Act and Electrical Safety Act, in relation to the railway operations. ‘(4) However, a condition imposed under subsection (3) can not apply to railway operations the subject of an accreditation. ‘(5) To remove any doubt, it is declared that a condition imposed by the chief executive under subsection (3) may be the same as, or similar to, a requirement of a provision of divisions 3 to 5 applying to railway operations the subject of an accreditation. ‘41D Considering application ‘(1) This section applies if a person applies for an exemption under section 41B for railway operations. ‘(2) The chief executive must consider the application and— (a) if the chief executive is satisfied of the matter mentioned in section 41C(1) in relation to the railway operations—grant the exemption, with or without conditions; or (b) refuse the application. ‘(3) The chief executive must grant the exemption, or refuse the application, before the latest of the following periods ends— (a) 6 months after the application was received by the chief executive; (b) if the chief executive requested further information in relation to the application—6 months, or another period agreed to by the chief executive and the applicant, after the chief executive receives the final information requested; 25 Feb 2010 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 605

(c) if the chief executive, by notice to the applicant before the expiry of a period mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b), nominates another period ending after the period mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b)—the nominated period. ‘(4) If the chief executive gives a notice under subsection (3)(c), the notice must include, or be accompanied by, an information notice for the decision to extend the period mentioned in the subsection. ‘41E Steps after application decided ‘(1) If the chief executive grants an exemption under this subdivision, the chief executive must give the applicant— (a) a notice stating the matters mentioned in subsection (2); and (b) if the chief executive has imposed a condition on the exemption—an information notice for the decision to impose the condition. ‘(2) A notice under subsection (1)(a) must state the following— (a) the details of the applicant prescribed under a regulation; (b) that the applicant is exempt from the requirement to be accredited for railway operations of the scope and nature for which the exemption is granted; (c) the scope and nature of the railway operations for which the exemption is granted; (d) if the chief executive has imposed conditions on the exemption—the conditions. ‘(3) If the chief executive decides to refuse an application for an exemption under this subdivision, the chief executive must give the applicant an information notice for the decision. ‘41F Effect of exemption ‘A person who is granted an exemption under this subdivision for railway operations of a stated scope and nature is exempt from the requirement to be accredited for the railway operations. ‘41G Operator etc. must not contravene condition of exemption ‘(1) This section applies if the chief executive imposes conditions on an exemption granted under this subdivision. ‘(2) A person carrying out railway operations for which the exemption is granted must not contravene a condition of the exemption. Maximum penalty—80 penalty units. ‘41H Grounds for varying, suspending or revoking exemption ‘(1) This section applies if— (a) an exemption under this subdivision was granted because of a document or representation that is false or misleading or obtained or made in another improper way; or (b) the chief executive reasonably considers— (i) risks to the safety of the railway operations the subject of an exemption under this subdivision are greater than that which would be the case if the person granted the exemption was required to be accredited for the railway operations; or (ii) the person granted an exemption under this subdivision is unable to carry out railway operations the subject of the exemption in a way that complies with the duties or requirements under this Act for the railway operations; or (c) the person granted an exemption under this subdivision has contravened this Act. ‘(2) The chief executive may, by complying with section 41I— (a) vary the exemption in either or both of the following ways— (i) by varying the scope and nature of the railway operations that are the subject of the exemption; (ii) by varying the conditions of the exemption, including by imposing new conditions; or (b) suspend the exemption wholly or partly, or in relation to stated railway operations, for a stated period; or (c) revoke the exemption wholly or partly, or in relation to stated railway operations, with immediate effect or with effect from a stated future date. ‘41I Procedure for varying, suspending or revoking exemption ‘(1) Before making a decision under section 41H, the chief executive must— (a) give the person a notice stating— (i) that the chief executive is considering making a decision under section 41H of the type, and for the reasons, stated in the notice; and (ii) that the person may, within the period of at least 28 days stated in the notice, make written representations to the chief executive showing cause why the decision should not be made; and (b) consider any representations made under paragraph (a)(ii) that have not been withdrawn. ‘(2) If, after considering the written representations, the chief executive decides to act under section 41H, the chief executive must give the person an information notice for the decision. ‘(3) If the chief executive decides to revoke the exemption, the information notice must also include a direction to the person to return the notice given under section 41E(1) for the exemption to the chief executive within 14 days after receiving the information notice. ‘(4) A person who is directed under subsection (3) to return a notice must comply with the direction, unless the person has a reasonable excuse. Maximum penalty—40 penalty units. ‘(5) A decision under section 41H takes effect on the later of the following— (a) the day the information notice is given to the person; (b) the day of effect stated in the information notice. ‘(6) If, after considering the written representations, the chief executive decides action is no longer required under section 41H in relation to the exemption, the chief executive must give the person notice of the decision. 606 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 25 Feb 2010

‘41J Suspending exemption immediately ‘(1) This section applies if the chief executive reasonably considers there is, or would be, an immediate and serious risk to the safety of persons if a person’s exemption under this subdivision is not suspended immediately. ‘(2) The chief executive may, by notice given to the person and without complying with section 41I, immediately suspend the person’s exemption— (a) wholly or partly, or in relation to stated railway operations; and (b) for a stated period not exceeding 6 weeks. ‘(3) The notice given under subsection (2) must include, or be accompanied by, an information notice. ‘(4) The chief executive may amend a suspension of a person’s exemption under this section to— (a) reduce the period of suspension; or (b) extend the period of suspension so long as the total suspension period does not exceed 6 weeks. ‘(5) Before amending a suspension of a person’s exemption under this section to extend the period of suspension, the chief executive must— (a) give the person a notice stating— (i) that the chief executive is considering extending the period of suspension for the reasons stated in the notice; and (ii) that the person may, within the period of at least 7 days stated in the notice, make written representations to the chief executive showing cause why the suspension should not be extended; and (b) consider any representations made under paragraph (a)(ii) that have not been withdrawn. ‘(6) If, after considering the written representations, the chief executive decides to amend the suspension of a person’s exemption to extend the period of suspension, the chief executive must give the person an information notice for the decision. ‘(7) If the chief executive decides to amend the suspension of a person’s exemption to reduce the period of suspension, the chief executive must give the person a notice stating the new period of suspension.’. I table the explanatory notes to the amendments. Tabled paper: Explanatory notes to amendments to be moved in consideration in detail by the minister [1789]. This issue has been discussed. This is the amendment suggested by the member for Nicklin. He represents some constituents who run the kinds of railways, the backyard railways—I am sure there is a more technical term—that we have discussed. His pretty compelling argument was that it was not reasonable to place a regulatory regime on those railways when they were not carrying freight and they were not carrying members of the public. The analogy that he used was that, really, it was no different from him driving a tractor on his property. He made the point to me that South Australia had created an exemption in that regard. I accept the wisdom of that argument and, as such, have had drafted the amendment which I have just moved. Amendment agreed to. Clauses 42 to 50, as read, agreed to. Clause 51— Ms NOLAN (6.36 pm): I move the following amendment— 2 Clause 51 (Requirement to obtain exemption notice) Page 56, line 3, after ‘Act’— insert— ‘, other than subdivision 3A,’. This is all part of the same thing, so I will not speak to it again. Amendment agreed to. Clause 51, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 52 to 60, as read, agreed to. Clause 61— Ms SIMPSON (6.38 pm): My questions really relate to a number of clauses, from 61 to 70, about the interface coordination. This is the issue we discussed in the second reading debate about agreements, particularly with private landowners, which will come into play under this legislation between rail transport operators and those who manage the rail infrastructure and the roads. This is a written agreement about managing the risks to the safety of persons, and I note that it can be between two or more rail transport operators or one or more rail transport operators and one or more responsible road managers for a road. It is the latter I particularly want to address. As per the concerns raised by a number of members, a large number of rail crossings are in private hands. This has been referred to by some as occupational crossings and in particular in regional areas where the rail lines pass through an agricultural property there may be a large number of crossings, some more formal than others. These crossings may be used for vehicles or substantial 25 Feb 2010 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 607 mobs of livestock and they are critical for the ability of these businesses to carry on their normal business. I ask the minister for advice on who will bear the onus to negotiate this agreement. Will this agreement be linked to the land or to the owner? I have some consequential questions as well. Will this agreement be linked to the land or the owner? Ms NOLAN: I thank the member for Maroochydore. I think that is a good question and a good point. There are 3½ thousand rail level crossings on public roads, let alone all of the ones that are on private land. Under this bill, there has to be an agreement between the company that owns the railway line and the landholder. I think that obviously sounds like a pretty major imposition on people. I am not sure if the member for Gregory raised it in his speech but he made a really good point to me in that there are cases in which you might have a dirt road crossing a railway line. Rather than that railway line being a raised track above the ground, as members will be able to imagine, in some cases the rail line operates essentially as a couple of grooves in the ground. The point made by the member for Gregory was that if you have stock crossing there, it might be possible for stock to drag dirt into those grooves and, therefore, cause a derailment. I am not aware that that has happened, but I respect the local knowledge of the member for Gregory and his judgement in that regard. Under this legislation, if the rail manager believes that there might be a potential issue—for instance, as the member for Gregory has suggested, that instance might cause a derailment of a train— then the rail manager has to initiate and undertake a process with the landholder. An agreement will be reached and that will be lodged with my department as the rail safety regulator. We are not going to have a gazillion of these agreements. It is worth noting that if the rail manager does not believe that an agreement is required—that is, there has not been an issue there in the past 50 years and they do not think that there is about to be—then no agreement is required. So the onus both to decide that there is a problem and subsequently to initiate the process lies with the rail manager but, if those two parties cannot agree, then the rail safety regulator will act as the arbiter. It is not that we are going to send small farmers off into battle with either the state government or a multimillion dollar corporation running a railway without there being a role for the independent rail safety regulator as an arbiter. Ms SIMPSON: It is still not clear as to whether the interface agreement rests with the land or with the person who has negotiated it as the owner. I seek clarification. The legislation contains obligations for the road manager and obligations for the rail operator. As I read the legislation—and I am happy to be corrected—there are mutual obligations, if they identify that there is a risk, to enter into negotiations with each other. It is not just the rail operator. If I have misread that, I am happy to be corrected, but it appears that they both have obligations, once they have identified a risk, to start entering into some negotiations with each other about those particular risks. But my question is: where there is an interface agreement, does that reside just with the person who has negotiated it, or does it attach to land? Ms NOLAN: It is the owner of the railway’s responsibility to initiate it. The landowner cannot put their hand over their ears and decide that they are not going to have anything to do with it. The state acts as an arbiter. If there is a problem in the negotiation, the agreement is lodged with the state and, no, the agreement—if I am understanding the member correctly—does not in any way attach to the land. Ms SIMPSON: In regard to this provision, there is still an issue as to who is going to bear the costs in regard to negotiating these interests. Somebody may have an existing rail line through their property but now finds themselves in a new scheme where negotiations may have to take place. As has been alluded to by my colleagues, there is also the issue of new infrastructure going through people’s property. If the agreement rests only with the individual and someone consequently sells their property—as they inevitably will—there can be an issue if that agreement lapses with the sale of that property. I can see that there is going to be some need to consider what those agreements may be in the transition of property, because they are quite substantial in that they can impact upon the business of that person. They could also impact on whether they continue to have access at that point. I seek the minister’s consideration and response. Ms NOLAN: You could roll it over if you wanted to. If you are selling a property you could give that to the new buyer rather than them having to agree to something new from scratch. Clause 61, as read, agreed to. Clause 62, as read, agreed to. Clause 63— Ms NOLAN (6.47 pm): I move the following amendment— 3 Clause 63 (Rail infrastructure manager’s obligation relating to rail or road crossing for a public road) Page 65, line 25, after ‘infrastructure’— insert— ‘manager’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 63, as amended, agreed to. 608 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 25 Feb 2010

Clauses 64 to 75, as read, agreed to. Clause 76— Ms SIMPSON (6.47 pm): I note the provision in the explanatory notes that this clause will apply only to rail safety operators. I note that the model law also allows for arrangements for a person undertaking railway operations on or in relation to the operator’s railway infrastructure or rolling stock. I ask the minister: why this variation? This is about testing for the presence of alcohol or drugs. In regard to this provision, one of the questions that has been raised in the consultation has been whether alcohol and drug testing will, in fact, be mandatory and random. Ms NOLAN: That is not the case in the legislation itself. The requirement in the legislation is that the operator has to provide a plan around alcohol and drugs to the satisfaction of the regulator. It is the case that in relation to the big operators, such as PN and QR, there is a comprehensive drug-testing regime. The legislation does not say that. That would be a matter for consideration of the regulator. A plan does have to be produced to the satisfaction of the regulator. Clause 76, as read, agreed to. Clauses 77 to 221— Ms NOLAN (6.50 pm): I seek leave to move the following amendments en bloc. Leave granted. Ms NOLAN: I move the following amendments— 4 Clause 86 (Relevant documents must be kept and made available for inspection) Page 83, lines 8 and 9— omit, insert— ‘operations— (i) for a rail transport operator exempt from the requirement to be accredited for railway operations under section 41F—the notice about the exemption given to the operator under section 41E(1); or (ii) for a rail transport operator exempt from the requirement to be accredited for railway operations under another provision of this Act—the exemption notice given to the operator under section 51;’. 5 Clause 100 (Procedure for suspending or revoking accreditation) Page 94, line 33 and page 95, line 24, ‘applicant’— omit, insert— ‘person’. Amendments agreed to. Clauses 77 to 221, as amended, agreed to. Clause 222— Ms SIMPSON (6.50 pm): This relates to limitations on disclosure of restricted information. In the earlier clause it outlined what restricted information is. As I understand, this was a provision under the Transport Infrastructure Act. However, it has been raised by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee in that this clause and other clauses through to clause 231 may affect rights and liberties of individuals including the right to a fair and just legal process. The report states— They would both limit information that may be provided to a court and the compellability of witnesses. The information that may be limited, ‘restricted information’, would be information gathered during an inquiry into an occurrence regarding railway premises or operations. This is, in fact, a breach of fundamental legislative principles. My question is: even though this is a restating of a concept in an earlier act, what check is there to ensure that the rights of people who are caught adversely by this provision will be considered? Ms NOLAN: I thank the member for Maroochydore. It is actually a really good point. Under both the old and the new rail safety legislation there is provision for no-blame investigations. What that means is that if there is a train crash all of the relevant parties front up to the investigator and tell the truth without threat of adverse consequences for them as a result of that investigation. That can sometimes seem strange because it is fundamentally different from a workplace health and safety investigation, a coronial investigation or a criminal investigation. The purpose of it is to genuinely get the real story and get to the bottom of rail safety incidents so that action can be taken to prevent similar accidents in future. There was some discussion in relation to the Cairns tilt train accident that it was not possible during the course of the investigation to make public what was going on. The member and I would both recall that. Having had some experience of it, I think that is a very strong provision. While there are other investigations that go on, in the no-blame rail safety investigation there is no threat of prosecution but a person cannot similarly be compelled to tell the police or someone else what was revealed in that rail safety investigation. I understand that on one hand that sounds odd, but it does have the purpose of really getting to the bottom of the rail safety incident. That is the point of this provision. Clause 222, as read, agreed to. 25 Feb 2010 Transport (Rail Safety) Bill 609

Clauses 223 to 347 and schedules 1 to 3— Ms NOLAN (6.54 pm): I seek leave to move the following amendments en bloc. Leave granted. Ms NOLAN: I move the following amendments— 6 Schedule 2 (Internal and external reviews) Page 249, after line 2, before entry for section 45(4)— insert— ‘section decision of chief executive to impose conditions 41D(2)(a) on exemption section 41D(2)(b) decision of chief executive to refuse application for exemption section 41D(3)(c) decision of chief executive to extend the period for deciding an application for exemption section 41I(2) decision of chief executive to vary, suspend or revoke exemption section 41J decision of chief executive to immediately suspend exemption, or extend period of immediate suspension of exemption’. 7 Schedule 3 (Dictionary) (1) Page 254, line 6— omit. (2) Page 255, after line 29— insert— ‘private isolated railway means a railway— (a) that is wholly contained on private land; and (b) is not connected to or associated with— (i) railway tracks, or any other rail infrastructure, of a railway that is on other land; or (ii) a rail or road crossing; and (c) is operated for personal enjoyment and is not for use by the general public. private land means land that is not a public place.’. (3) Page 261, lines 5 and 6— omit, insert— ‘scope and nature, of railway operations— (a) in relation to an exemption under part 4, division 2, subdivision 3A, or an application for an exemption under part 4, division 2, subdivision 3A—see section 41A; or (b) in relation to an accreditation or an application for an accreditation—see section 89.’. Amendments agreed to. Clauses 223 to 347 and schedules 1 to 3, as amended, agreed to.

Third Reading Hon. RG NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (Minister for Transport) (6.55 pm): I move— That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Question put—That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time.

Long Title Hon. RG NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (Minister for Transport) (6.55 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. 610 Adjournment 25 Feb 2010

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Child Care and Another Act Amendment Bill Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training) (6.55 pm), by leave: During the debate on the Child Care and Another Act Amendment Bill yesterday the member for Indooroopilly made a claim regarding funding to primary schools under the base Commonwealth-state funding arrangement. I undertook to obtain departmental advice on a response to that issue. The Bligh government is committed to giving our youngest Queenslanders a flying start to education. It is our responsibility to make sure that funds are used as effectively as possible to ensure that all Queensland children get a world-class education. For the last decade or more of the Commonwealth-state funding arrangements, the state schooling system has been funded using a different formula for the primary sector and the secondary sector: 8.9 per cent for the primary sector and 10 per cent for the secondary sector. The 2009 change increased the primary sector percentage to the same as the secondary sector. This was in part due to the Queensland government’s lobbying of the Commonwealth over a considerable period, as well as the very strong advocacy by the Primary Principals Association, state and national. This was the only change in the arrangements. As before 2009, since the changed formula the Commonwealth has provided the funds to the state system and not to individual schools. Contrary to the understanding of the member for Indooroopilly, base funding has never been paid directly to individual schools. We are committed to ensuring it goes to students who need it most. In keeping with the focus of the National Education Agreement, in Queensland the additional funding will be invested in initiatives that will have a real impact on improving literacy and numeracy performance: intensive literacy and numeracy programs, 500 additional teacher aide positions and the Science Spark program. Further, each primary school will directly receive an additional $10,000 annually in school grant funding, with identified low socioeconomic status schools receiving a further $3,000 per year. With the implementation of these programs, Queensland primary schools will have a benefit that far exceeds the increase in the nominal Commonwealth base funding. This is about making sure that funding goes to the front line and is used in the most effective way possible so that all Queensland students can get a flying start to their education.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Hon. RG NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (6.58 pm): I move— That the House, at its rising, do adjourn until 9.30 am on Tuesday, 9 March 2010. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. RG NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (6.58 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Halifax Police Station Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (6.58 pm): I rise to appeal desperately to the police minister to stop tomorrow’s auctioning off of the old Halifax Police Station in the township of Halifax in my electorate of Hinchinbrook. My appeal tonight follows correspondence from me to the police minister on 19 November and 9 December 2009 and 1 February 2010 making representations on behalf of the Halifax Progress Association. The Halifax Progress Association wants to preserve the old Halifax Police Station. The interest of the progress association stems from the historical connection between the old Halifax Police Station and Sir Arthur Fadden, a former Prime Minister of Australia, who was born in the Herbert River district on 13 April 1895. Sir Arthur’s father was stationed at Halifax at the time as a local police officer. This is the same building where a young Sir Arthur spent his early years, and the Halifax community is proud of the historical connection. This connection was recognised by the former police minister, Judy Spence, when she opened the new police station at Halifax on Wednesday, 28 February 2007. The station was built in 1885 and had serviced the Halifax community for 122 years prior to the new station being opened. Given the historical significance of the old Halifax Police Station to the Halifax community, especially given that this significance was clearly known to the government, it is a concern to me that the government plans to 25 Feb 2010 Adjournment 611 auction the building off tomorrow. It is true that following representations to the minister, the government did place a condition of sale on the auction requiring the building to remain in the Herbert River district. However, something that both the Halifax Progress Association and I requested, which has been ignored by the Bligh government, is consultation with the Halifax community that would discuss how the building could be managed going forward to preserve its heritage value. It would be understandable if the state government needed the land for another community use or if we were asking the state government to spend substantial amounts of money on the old Halifax Police Station. But this is not the case. No alternative use has been flagged, although we all suspect the land will be sold off. The Halifax Progress Association has put up its hand to take responsibility for maintaining the building, if it can secure a peppercorn lease over the land and acquire the building for a minimal cost. Such an arrangement would not cost the government anything. The Halifax Progress Association has indicated that it wanted to work with the Halifax museum to use the old Halifax Police Station for historical displays and of course to raise awareness of the local connection with Sir Arthur Fadden. Along with the museum, Halifax would then have a real heritage precinct to promote as a tourist attraction. What the Halifax Progress Association cannot afford is to buy the building at auction, to pay for it to be relocated and also to pay for a block of land to relocate the building to. Having contacted the police minister on three occasions, this is my last ditch attempt to have him listen to the people of Halifax and protect the heritage and history of this proud little community.

Mitchelton Neighbourhood Plan

Mr WATT (Everton—ALP) (7.01 pm): Mitchelton, better known as ‘Mitchie’, is the southern most suburb in the electorate of Everton—and indeed it is the suburb that I live in with my family. It is a family suburb, with big backyards and a village feel. It has many longstanding residents but also more recent arrivals, particularly young families. Like many areas of South-East Queensland, Mitchelton is experiencing pressures of population growth. Under the auspices of the state government’s South East Queensland Regional Plan, the Brisbane City Council is currently preparing the Mitchelton Neighbourhood Plan. I have to say that the neighbourhood plan to date has been poorly received by the community. My office has received many complaints about it, including complaints about the proposal to accommodate 2,200 extra residents over the next 16 years and a view that that understates the number of extra residents who will need to be accommodated. I have also received complaints about the council’s proposal to have high-rise apartments of up to 10 storeys and I have also received complaints about the process by which the council has been preparing this plan. But the major concern that has been raised with me consistently by local residents has been the impact of additional residents in the area on local infrastructure, particularly roads and transport services. Even now, at times, these services struggle to cope with the existing population in and around Mitchelton. I know that this issue is of great concern also to the members for Ashgrove and Ferny Grove, as their constituents also depend on the roads, buses and trains nearby. Provision of infrastructure is obviously an issue for both state and local government. As I say, this extra population will have an impact on many local roads and bus services but also on train services and state government roads like Samford Road. Clearly, we need both levels of government working together now to plan for future infrastructure needs. Until recently, I have found it impossible to engage council on this subject. I have written to Councillor Wines, the local Brisbane city councillor, and spoken to council officers, seeking to bring state government agencies to the table for negotiations, but this offer has not been taken up. Members of the community planning team, I have been advised, have asked for me to participate in meetings with council officers but council has refused. I am pleased to say that council has now agreed to work with me and state government officers to begin planning for the future infrastructure needs of Mitchelton and surrounding suburbs arising from the neighbourhood plan. I mentioned earlier that council’s proposed plan has been poorly received by the local community. Last night I attended a public meeting organised by the Mitchelton Action Group to discuss the plan. About 300 people attended which shows the depth of concern in the local community. A number of questions were posed from members of the public to me; Councillor Amanda Cooper, the chair of the Brisbane City Council planning committee; and local Councillor Andrew Wines. The crowd was extremely polite but there definitely remains much angst about this proposal. I welcome council’s decision which was announced last night to scale back the development to 1,600 residents needing to be accommodated, removing some streets from the area for high-rise apartments and reducing height limits in the remaining high-rise areas. This has been positively received, but there are still concerns that need to be addressed. Both levels of government do need to keep working together to make sure that this plan works. 612 Adjournment 25 Feb 2010

Warrego Electorate, Floods

Mr HOBBS (Warrego—LNP) (7.04 pm): Tonight I want to talk about the flooding in the Maranoa and south-west region. Many members would be aware that we had a lot of welcome rain in those areas. It has been very dry in the past but many places have had more than their annual rainfall just in the last couple of months, especially since Christmas. Obviously a lot of damage has been done to council, state and national roads that will need to be repaired. Also, landholders will be impacted with a lot of fencing damage and so forth. Overall, it has been a fairly orderly flood event that we have had. A lot of towns have been cut off and there has been some inconvenience but, generally speaking, most of the towns do have good flood plans in place. Roma, for instance, did have a major flood. We were just a whisker away from having a catastrophe. The water came to about seven metres—7.2 metres is what they classify as a major flood. This was a major flood, but it was not quite over that. Something like 27 houses were sandbagged. I think two houses ended up with water over their floorboards. While that was disappointing, at the end of the day if it had rained that night things would have been a lot worse. The SES did a wonderful job and the council workers did too, filling sandbags. I take my hat off to the great work that was done and the modelling that was done. They were well prepared for it. Further out west in the Murweh shire, the Paroo shire, the Bulloo shire and my Quilpie shire— Dave Edwards is the mayor out there—they have also had some flooding. For instance, the new Ward River Bridge west of Charleville has been great. The old bridge was underwater for a week until just the last few days, so the new bridge has been great. They have also done a lot of work at Bradleys Gully through Charleville. That has allowed floodwaters to get away pretty quick. At Thargomindah the Bulloo River has been up for three weeks. They have had to use a boat for a week. They have a flood truck that they use to get supplies across. They have had a lot of rainfall. Mossies and sandflies, of course, are causing a lot of havoc out there, as they do. But, by the same token, the rain has been a godsend to the people out there. I think the whole south-west and the north- west of Queensland have benefited. There have been falls of up to 30 inches, I have heard, in some places. But anything from 14 to 20 inches has fallen around those districts, so that has been wonderful. We certainly welcome the rain.

Evans, Mr LA, OAM

Mrs KIERNAN (Mount Isa—ALP) (7.07 pm): I rise today to pay tribute to the life and work of Lawrence (Laurie) Arthur Evans OAM. Laurie was born in Mackay in May 1933, and after finishing school worked for a firm of solicitors in Mackay and then Townsville. He was admitted as a solicitor on 19 February 1957 and arrived in Mount Isa one month later. He practised as a solicitor up until the time of his death—some 53 years. Laurie’s service to community, friendships and clients did not stop at the boundaries of the city of Mount Isa. They extended far and wide across the north-west, our state and indeed the nation. Laurie became the solicitor for the Mount Isa shire council on 1 July 1965 and continued in this role until the time of his death. He was also retained by the Burke Shire Council and the Flinders Shire Council. His knowledge of local government law was extensive and it was a part of his work that he enjoyed. Laurie was also a notary public for 50 years. Laurie’s knowledge of the history of Mount Isa and the region was extraordinary, as was his commitment to providing the residents of the north-west with quality legal services. It is, however, his outstanding contribution to the Mount Isa community through his voluntary work with Rotary and other organisations that is truly outstanding. He joined the Mount Isa Rotary Club on 6 July 1960 and would have had 50 years in Rotary in July this year. Laurie had not missed a Rotary meeting since 16 October 1963. He maintained his 100 per cent attendance to the end. He held every position in the club and was appointed district governor for the 1996-97 year. Laurie received several Paul Harris Fellows for his work with Rotary. At the time of his death he had received a total of nine, making him a Paul Harris Fellow with triple ruby. His contribution to community had no boundaries. His interests were all about community. His work with our local district Rotary clubs, fire brigade, cricket, umpires, lawn bowls, local government and his beloved law association shows the depth and passion of this great man. His service epitomises the Rotary motto: ‘Service above self’. Laurie’s lasting legacy is that he will be remembered as a devoted husband to Judy, beloved father to Bronwyn and Ian, and much loved brother and uncle. He was a man greatly loved, respected and admired, a man of integrity, kindness, humility and tolerance, a man who was a good mate to many and one of nature’s great gentlemen. 25 Feb 2010 Adjournment 613

Mackay West State School, Asbestos Dr FLEGG (Moggill—LNP) (7.10 pm): I rise to speak about the issue of asbestos removal at Mackay West State School. At this school, workmen under the auspices of QBuild were seen sanding back known asbestos into the condition described as ‘full friable’, the most dangerous form of asbestos. The resulting dust which contained asbestos fibres was then inadequately cleaned up, including with the use of a domestic vacuum cleaner. Workmen were not wearing appropriate safety gear, and I have seen the video of this practice. Minister Schwarten tried to reassure the parliament that children would not be put at risk, but there is clearly a risk to children if free asbestos fibres were released into a school vicinity, as happened in this case, and there was certainly a risk to the workers. I see that Minister Schwarten has called an independent investigation. The minister’s history is that his only interest is in whitewashing asbestos. I note that he did not release any terms of reference for his independent investigation, and members can be safely assured that those terms of reference will not allow the issue to be fully investigated. There is an even more sinister aspect to this. An asbestos remover with 20 years experience in asbestos removal technology who witnessed and attempted to report this—and he reported it through the correct channels, to Workplace Health and Safety, Parsons Brinckerhoff and QBuild—was allegedly threatened by the QBuild contract manager. He was told to ‘shut your (expletive) mouth’ and he was told that this never happened. Subsequently, a secondary boycott of his business has allegedly been called whereby his clients have been contacted by QBuild and told not to do business with him, resulting in the loss of clients and the loss of contracts. This sort of activity in the asbestos removal industry is unfortunately all too common, but in my view this aspect of intimidation and secondary boycott may be official misconduct. Unlike Minister Schwarten, I have today written to the CMC and asked it to investigate the official misconduct aspect of this area. There are systemic problems in the asbestos removal industry, particularly in our schools, as we also saw in Caningeraba State School. As an opposition, we hear many such complaints but because contractors fear that what happened in Mackay will happen to them frequently the matters do not go any further. Licence requirements for asbestos removers are weak. It is very similar to the ceiling insulation industry, because shonky removers have moved into a highly lucrative business. Yorke Island, Sea Sponge Farming Mr O’BRIEN (Cook—ALP) (7.13 pm): Last Tuesday I travelled to Yorke Island and inspected a sea sponge farm which is being developed by Kailag Enterprises Pty Ltd, a not-for-profit Indigenous organisation established by the community of Yorke Island to enable economic development and job opportunities for the Yorke Island people. The sea sponge farming venture is being developed in the waters adjacent to Kodal and Masig, the traditional name for Yorke, with assistance from DEEDI and the TSRA, which has provided fifty-fifty funding for two years to establish the aquaculture project to a commercial-ready basis. The aquaculture farming venture has been planned and implemented from substantial research and development completed in the Torres Strait by the Australian Institute of Marine Science and funded by the CRC Torres Strait and the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, which just today received its ongoing funding from the federal government. The business structure has been implemented on the terms of a business plan initiated by DEEDI. That details how natural sea sponges can be cultivated in aquaculture techniques to produce a quality bath sponge for the beauty product market. In its first year of operation, KEL has managed the following achievements. It set up a sponge farm by commercialising the science from AIMS to install 40 riser longlines for the stocking of more than 9,000 sea sponges. It has created five jobs on the island, with provision for another five within the next 12 months. It has trained its staff to get their scuba dive qualifications because the majority of the work on the farm is done by scuba divers, although we just snorkelled there the other day. It has achieved all of the required state and Commonwealth approvals to operate a 10-hectare marine aquaculture farm, including the Commonwealth requirement to monitor the hawksbill turtle. It purchased a new dive boat and scuba gear. It also successfully gained an unqualified audit. During this year, the company is planning to commence its first marketing of the natural sea sponges into the domestic and export markets, with an emphasis on the beauty product market in Europe. KEL will also continue to stock more sponges on the farm during 2010 and increase production to approximately more than 30,000 sponges, in line with the objectives of the business plan. I was a bit nervous getting into the water, particularly because the first thing I saw looking straight back at me from 10 metres away was a four-metre reef shark. Sorry, I should say it was a four-foot reef shark; it gets bigger every time I tell the story. That just goes to show the sort of environment that these workers are working in, and they are welcome to it. It also shows that there is an economic future for the Torres Strait. It is going to take a number of different answers to develop the economy of that region, but this is an important project. It fits in with the existing strengths of the Torres Strait people, who are well experienced in the diving industry and have a long history of operating under the water. 614 Adjournment 25 Feb 2010

Caloundra Airport Ms SIMPSON (Maroochydore—LNP) (7.16 pm): What we have seen under this government is a lack of leadership in regard to regional aviation policy. In 2014 the leases on Caloundra Airport are due to expire. It is at least two years since this government was supposed to have made a decision to release the plans on what it intends to do to replace that airport. The government has not announced that, yet it is intending to sell off this airport and see it redeveloped for housing. A government member: Hear, hear! Ms SIMPSON: I heard that interjection from the other side, when a government member just said, ‘Hear, hear!’ in response to my comment that the government intends to sell the land off for housing. What is this government doing? It is selling the assets of Queensland. It is pushing populations into areas and not putting in place the necessary infrastructure to sustain that population growth. Here we see an example of one failed decision-making process that impacts across the whole region. The Sunshine Coast Airport now finds that there is a proposed desalination plant under the flight path of approaching aircraft. What we see is a lack of coordination in the way that this government does business. It is based upon a lack of proper forward planning and a lack of protection of the necessary infrastructure, particularly in this case in regard to aviation. There has been no decision on the Caloundra Airport. People and businesses have been left in limbo. They are unable to make investment decisions. They do not know whether they should look at other places. They are unable to get clarity from the government, which has broken its promise that it would make a decision about that airport and in relation to the investigation of an alternative airport south of Caloundra. At the last election, the LNP made it quite clear that we believe it is important to keep the Caloundra Airport in lieu of an alternative location. This government has sat on its reports in regard to the alternative location south of Caloundra. I predict that the government does not want to make a decision to push it down into that area. The government just wants to close this airport and force all the general aviation back to the Sunshine Coast Airport. That is a mistake, and it is a mistake to start taking away from general aviation not only in South-East Queensland but also in the rest of Queensland. That is not a vision for the future. It is costing jobs today as people find they have no certainty from the decision making and the word of this government. I will address the issue of putting a desalination path under the flight path of approaching aircraft and how the government has tried to manoeuvre its plans around that. We have not yet seen any detailed report, other than a very cursory report in regard to how the government will get around that. What we have seen are knee-jerk reactions from this government that are not about planning for the future and delivering infrastructure in a timely way for today. If the government is going to compromise the safety and the future investment of aviation, it should come clean and release its plans. Not announcing its decisions is not about government. We need to see the plans that it has undertaken in regard to the new airfields, and I think we will see that it has decided to close the Caloundra Airport and not replace it.

Albert Australia Day Awards Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (7.19 pm): Australia Day gives me a unique opportunity to publicly recognise and honour some of my electorate’s quiet achievers through my annual Albert Australia Day Awards. Each year I call on people from across the electorate to nominate those people who have a demonstrated record of exceptional community service to the people of Albert. With nominations flooding in from as early as the middle of last year, these awards are a tradition that I started during my first term as state member for Albert, and it is one of the most enjoyable events of my whole year. At the special ceremony I had great pleasure in honouring the 2010 winners: Peter Eather, for Indigenous security training; Nigel Shaw, Pimpama State School; Ann Wall, Anne Cobcroft and Anne McGregor, Willow Vale Neighbourhood Watch; Rodney Phillips, a justice of the peace; Veronica Cox, Studio Village Community Centre; Peter Keech, Beenleigh Prostate Cancer Support Group; John and Sylvia Constantin, Ormeau rural firefighters; Nell Mansell, Pioneer Club; Margaret Hawthorne, Oxenford State School; the team at the Beenleigh Seniors Community Transport Service; Franklyn and Ida Holladay, who are long-term and loving foster carers; Nellie and Denny Brehmer, Pimpama Church Hall; and Richard and Vicky Lohrisch, Lohrisch Funerals. Although they were not able to make the ceremony, I wish to publicly honour other winners including Leoni Bradford, Ormeau Progress Association; Tony and Julie Toll, rural firefighters; Judy Williams, Mount Warren Park State School; and an Albert Australia Day Award to Humphrey Firkins, Goda Firkins Foundation. 25 Feb 2010 Adjournment 615

I would also like to thank my guest speaker, Mr Brett Raguse MP, the federal member for Forde, and hardworking Councillor Donna Gates from the Gold Coast City Council for joining me on this very special occasion. Brett, Donna and I are most grateful to have such a wonderful and inspirational group of volunteers supporting us as we work together as a team as the elected representatives on the northern Gold Coast. A special thank you must also go to our amazing caterer and volunteer extraordinaire, Judy Hendrikx, who provided our special guests with a delicious Aussie morning tea. My thanks also go to my hardworking electorate staff—Natalie Main and Brent Davidson. Congratulations to all award recipients and thank you for your valuable contribution in making Albert such a great place to live and work. Public Transport, Rural Areas Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (7.22 pm): The government knows how limited and almost nonexistent public transport is in rural areas. It also knows there is a move to keep elderly people in their homes longer instead of sending them to nursing care or aged-care facilities and has provided assistance in the form of Home Assist Secure. There is one area of need that has not been considered, however, and that is public transport in rural areas. In my electorate one bus company currently runs a service known as the shoppers bus once a week into Ipswich. It is ill-named the shoppers bus, as many of those who rely on the service are people requiring medical attention, X-rays, blood tests, physio et cetera, not to mention bank services which are no longer available in their areas. A lot of these are the elderly the government wants to stay in their homes. This service is now considering closing down after 15 years of service to the public as passenger numbers fluctuate from 20 to 50, and the bus company has to now make a commercial decision as to its future viability. The bus company, I am told, has approached government for permission to co-utilise one of the company’s school coaches in the Brisbane Valley fleet for the shoppers bus. This request has been rejected because the school bus subsidy is structured and targeted specifically at providing modern and safe vehicles to service school bus routes contracted and funded by the state government, and that is to be expected. To me it is a travesty of common sense that millions of dollars worth of school buses can be so underutilised, especially in rural areas where transport is so very scarce. Why can’t school buses after dropping off their students at 8.30 pick up paying passengers and travel on—in this case to Ipswich and return back in time to pick up the school passengers once more, providing of course that the owner of the bus is agreeable? The government would not be any further compromised as it signs a contract for a certain amount to cover transporting children to and from schools. There is a government subsidised bus called the workers bus that travels from Toogoolawah to Ipswich Railway Station. It leaves at 5.45 am and returns at 8 pm. I believe approximately 17 people catch this bus every day. If a bus patronised by 17 people twice daily and running six days per week can be subsidised for workers, why not a bus carrying 20 to 50 people once a week to essential services? In the interests of keeping our ageing population in their own homes longer and providing a viable and consistent once a week bus service operational in areas of most need, I ask the government to reconsider its policy regarding the use of school buses between and outside of school hours, and give bus owners the option of providing a badly needed public service for our elderly people so that they may stay in their homes. It is not a lot to ask. People in the city take for granted the bus services they have, but for anybody seeking medical services in many rural areas it is almost impossible without asking a family member to stop work for a day or other people to take them there. Water Safety Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations) (7.25 pm): Each year people of all ages around Australia lose their lives through drowning. It devastates the community and deeply impacts the family involved, leaving permanent heartache. Closer to home we witnessed the tragic loss of a 13-year-old Somali boy on Brisbane’s south side who died in rain- swollen Bulimba Creek last December. His death had a profound effect on his family and the Somali community. There is no room for complacency when it comes to safety around water. Drowning is silent and can happen in an instant. In response to this tragedy, I organised a water safety awareness session in the electorate of Greenslopes in collaboration with the Somali Development Organisation and Surf Life Saving Queensland to discuss all aspects of water safety. There are many residents in the Greenslopes electorate who originally came to our country from Somalia, and I was very happy to organise this session for them. Water safety awareness is important for everyone, so it is important that we extend some extra assistance to newcomers to our state and nation who are not familiar with local conditions and the risks posed by water. The water safety awareness session was held on Saturday, 13 February 2010 at the Eastern Suburbs Junior Rugby League Football Club at Holland Park. The commitment of all of us in 616 Attendance 25 Feb 2010

Queensland is to ensure such tragedies never happen again, but it is also critical for all south siders to learn about the hidden dangers of fast-flowing creeks, particularly during the wet season, as well as safety at the beach. Living in the Sunshine State we are very fortunate in having access to stunning beaches, but beaches also have the potential to be deadly. The hidden dangers of rips can cost lives. The seminar focused on water safety fundamentals such as learning to swim and survival skills when caught in a life- threatening situation. It also focused on the importance of parental supervision in the water and the need to be close at hand should assistance be necessary. I want to thank the representatives of the Somali Development Organisation who helped me organise this session together with the representatives of Surf Life Saving Queensland who conducted such an excellent program. I want to thank all members of the local Somali community who attended. The session was very well attended. There were at least 40 people in attendance. It was a tribute to the parents of many children in the local community that they attended, were so attentive and paid such attention to what was occurring. They took home with them much of the literature produced and presented at the seminar by Surf Life Saving Queensland. I want to thank all participants for this important water safety program that will assist residents, particularly new residents, in my electorate. Question put—That the House do now adjourn. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 7.28 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, Messenger, Mickel, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nicholls, Nolan, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Powell, Pratt, Reeves, Rickuss, Roberts, Robertson, Robinson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Seeney, Shine, Simpson, Smith, Sorensen, Spence, Springborg, Stevens, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson

GOVERNMENT PRINTER, QUEENSLAND—2010