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-SECOND PARLIAMENT Page Thursday, 6 September 2007

ABSENCE OF SPEAKER ...... 3113 PETITIONS ...... 3113 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 3113 Peacekeepers ...... 3113 Council for the Australian Federation, Appointment of Director ...... 3113 Clean Coal ...... 3114 Queensland Economy ...... 3114 Rugby League World Cup ...... 3115 Electricity Industry ...... 3115 Great Artesian Basin, Water Allocation ...... 3116 Tabled paper: Map, undated, by Queensland Natural Resources and Water titled ‘Surat Basin management Areas of the Great Artesian Basin Water Resource Plan’...... 3116 Air Pollution Conference ...... 3116 Tabled paper: Media release, dated 6 September 2007, from the Premier and Minister for Trade titled ‘World focus on Brisbane for air pollution conference’...... 3116 Premier’s Art Prize ...... 3116 Queensland Events Regional Development Program ...... 3117 Smart Women-Smart State Awards ...... 3117 Tabled paper: Two copies of the Smart Women-Smart State Awards 2007 Program for 29 August 2007 by the Office of Women...... 3118 International Education and Training Industry ...... 3119 Tabled paper: Media release, undated, from the Premier and Minister for Trade titled ‘Queensland celebrates education leaders: Premier’...... 3119 Youth Peace Parliament ...... 3119 Queensland History ...... 3119 Traveston Dam ...... 3120 Tabled paper: Report, dated July 1977, by Project Planning Branch, Irrigation and Water Supply Commission, Queensland, titled ‘Mary River Gympie Flood Mitigation—Appraisal Study’...... 3121 Tabled paper: Report, dated January 1980, by Project Planning Branch, Queensland Water Resources Commission, titled ‘Mary River Gympie Flood Mitigation—Summary report.’ ...... 3121

L J OSMOND N J LAURIE CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT Table of Contents — Thursday, 6 September 2007

Water Infrastructure ...... 3122 Fuel Subsidy ...... 3122 Equine Influenza ...... 3123 Queensland Ambulance Service ...... 3123 Boat Licensing; Kessels and Mains Roads Intersection ...... 3124 Tabled paper: Discussion paper, dated September 2007, by Maritime Safety Queensland titled ‘Improving recreational boating safety’...... 3125 Tabled paper: Article from the Southern Star, dated 5 September 2007, by Stewart Mulligan titled ‘Labor to ‘fix traffic woes’...... 3126 Tabled paper: Letter, dated July 2004, from the Hon Gary Hardgrave MP addressed to Residents relating to the use of the Brisbane Urban Corridor for national freight...... 3126 Tabled paper: Article, undated, from an unknown source relating to Auslink...... 3126 Tabled paper: Article from The Courier Mail, dated 4 September 2007, by Sam Strutt titled ‘Underpass vow hits where it will hurt’...... 3126 Surgical Deaths in Public Hospitals ...... 3126 Electoral Enrolment ...... 3126 Assistance Dogs ...... 3126 Indigenous Communities, Domestic Violence ...... 3127 Vigilante Attacks ...... 3127 Tabled paper: Article, undated, from unknown source titled ‘Brutal assault—detectives slam cowards who took ‘justice’ into own hands’...... 3127 Land Registry ...... 3128 TRAVELSAFE COMMITTEE ...... 3128 Report ...... 3128 Tabled paper: Travelsafe Committee Report No. 50 titled, ‘Investigation into child deaths and Injuries from low speed vehicle run-overs’, September 2007...... 3128 MEMBERS’ ETHICS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE ...... 3129 Report ...... 3129 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 3130 Superior Industries ...... 3130 Queensland Ambulance Service ...... 3131 Equine Influenza ...... 3131 Riverside Expressway ...... 3132 Russia-Australia Business Forum ...... 3132 South East Freeway, Elizabeth Street Ramp ...... 3133 Tabled paper: Bundle of emails and reports regarding the Riverside Expressway...... 3133 Springbrook National Park ...... 3134 Water Assets ...... 3135 Gold Coast, Health Services ...... 3135 Infrastructure Projects, Wages Pressure ...... 3136 Child Protection Week ...... 3137 Gold Coast Hospital, Cardiology Unit ...... 3137 Liquor Licensing, Community Events ...... 3138 Local Government Reform ...... 3139 Osprey Nests, Oak Beach ...... 3140 Currumbin Special School ...... 3140 Tabled paper: Article from The Sunday Mail, dated 2 September 2007, by Kay Dibben titled ‘Boy sues aide for kicking in school’...... 3140 Feral Pigs ...... 3141 Pornography Ban ...... 3141 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3142 Unemployment Rate ...... 3142 TRANSPORT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3142 First Reading ...... 3142 Second Reading ...... 3142 URBAN LAND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BILL ...... 3147 Second Reading ...... 3147 Tabled paper: Bundle of documents relating to Montville/Flaxton/Mapleton area and proposed iconic legislation...... 3161 Consideration in Detail ...... 3179 Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to...... 3179 Tabled paper: Explanatory Notes for amendments to be moved during consideration in detail for the Urban Land Development Authority Bill...... 3181 Clause 3, as read, agreed to...... 3182 Clauses 4 and 5, as read, agreed to...... 3182 Clause 6, as read, agreed to...... 3182 Clauses 7 to 9, as read, agreed to...... 3182 Table of Contents — Thursday, 6 September 2007

Clause 10, as read, agreed to...... 3182 Clauses 11 to 16, as read, agreed to...... 3182 Clause 17, as read, agreed to...... 3183 Clauses 18 to 23, as read, agreed to...... 3183 Clause 24, as read, agreed to...... 3183 Clauses 25 to 27, as read, agreed to...... 3183 Clause 28, as read, agreed to...... 3184 Clause 29, as read, agreed to...... 3184 Clause 30, as read, agreed to...... 3185 Clause 31, as read, agreed to...... 3185 Clause 32, as read, agreed to...... 3185 Clause 33, as read, agreed to...... 3185 Clause 34, as read, agreed to...... 3185 Clauses 35 and 36, as read, agreed to...... 3186 Clauses 37 and 38, as read, agreed to...... 3186 Clause 39, as read, agreed to...... 3186 Clause 40, as read, agreed to...... 3186 Clauses 41 to 53, as read, agreed to...... 3186 Clause 54 (Notice of application)— ...... 3186 Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to...... 3188 Non-government amendment (Dr Flegg) negatived...... 3188 Clause 54, as read, agreed to...... 3188 Clauses 55 and 56, as read, agreed to...... 3188 Clause 57, as read, agreed to...... 3188 Clause 58, as read, agreed to...... 3188 Clauses 59 to 61 (en bloc amendments)— ...... 3188 Division: Question put—That amendments Nos 2 and 3 be agreed to...... 3190 Non-government amendments (Dr Flegg) negatived...... 3190 Clauses 59 to 61, as read, agreed to...... 3190 Clause 62, as read, agreed to...... 3190 Clause 63, as read, agreed to...... 3190 Clause 64, as read, agreed to...... 3190 Clause 65, as read, agreed to...... 3190 Clause 66, as read, agreed to...... 3190 Clauses 67 to 74, as read, agreed to...... 3190 Clause 75 (Application to change UDA development approval)— ...... 3190 Clause 75, as amended, agreed to...... 3191 Clauses 76 to 77, as read, agreed to...... 3191 Clause 78, as read, agreed to...... 3191 Clauses 79 to 95, as read, agreed to...... 3191 Clause 96, as read, agreed to...... 3191 Clauses 97 to 100, as read, agreed to...... 3191 Clause 101, as read, agreed to...... 3192 Clauses 102 to 105, as read, agreed to...... 3192 Clauses 106 to 111 (en bloc amendments)— ...... 3192 Division: Question put—That amendments 4, 5 and 6 be agreed to...... 3195 Non-government amendments (Dr Flegg) negatived...... 3195 Clauses 106 to 111, as read, agreed to...... 3195 Clauses 112 to 143, as read, agreed to...... 3195 Clause 144 (Review of Act)— ...... 3195 Division: Question put—That the member for Moggill’s amendment be agreed to...... 3196 Non-government amendment (Dr Flegg) negatived...... 3196 Clause 144, as read, agreed to...... 3196 Clauses 145 to 202 (en bloc amendments)— ...... 3197 Clauses 145 to 202, as amended, agreed to...... 3200 Division: Question put—That clause 203, as read, stand part of the bill...... 3200 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3200 Clause 204, as read, agreed to...... 3200 Remaining Stages; Allocation of Time Limit Order ...... 3201 Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to...... 3201 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3201 Consideration in Detail ...... 3201 Clauses 205 to 250 and schedule 1, as read, agreed to...... 3201 Third Reading ...... 3201 Long Title ...... 3201 Table of Contents — Thursday, 6 September 2007

REVENUE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) ...... 3202 Remaining Stages; Allocation of Time Limit Order ...... 3202 REVENUE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) ...... 3202 Second Reading ...... 3202 Tabled paper: Letter dated 6 September 2007 from Ms Betty Kiernan MP, Member for Mount Isa to Hon. Mike Reynolds MP, Speaker, regarding her declaration in accordance with SO 260...... 3202 Consideration in Detail ...... 3205 Clauses 1 to 42, as read, agreed to...... 3205 Third Reading ...... 3205 Long Title ...... 3205 SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT ...... 3205 ADJOURNMENT ...... 3205 Child Protection Week ...... 3205 Cantabile Choir ...... 3206 Noosa Electorate, Flooding ...... 3206 Mansfield Electorate, Road Upgrades ...... 3207 Warrant Officer Class 2 Keith Payne VC ...... 3207 Amberley State School ...... 3208 Power, Councillor D ...... 3209 Public Art in Hervey Bay ...... 3209 Death of Ms M Mitchell ...... 3210 Adjournment Speech ...... 3210 ATTENDANCE ...... 3211 06 Sep 2007 Legislative Assembly 3113 THURSDAY, 6 SEPTEMBER 2007

Legislative Assembly The House met at 9.30 am. ABSENCE OF SPEAKER The Clerk informed the House of the absence of Mr Speaker. The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr John English) read prayers and took the chair as Acting Speaker. The honourable member for Keppel was nominated by Mr Acting Speaker as Deputy Speaker. Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr John English, Redlands) acknowledged the traditional owners of the land upon which this parliament is assembled and the custodians of the sacred lands of our state.

PETITIONS

The following honourable members have lodged paper petitions for presentation—

Traveston Dam Mr Dempsey, from 122 petitioners, requesting the House to take all necessary action to protect the lives and homes of the people of the Mary Valley who are threatened by the dam to be built at Traveston Crossing.

Agnes Water and Town of 1770, Desalination Plant Mr Messenger, from 230 petitioners, requesting the House to defer by 7 months the letting of any contracts for the desalination plant for Agnes Water and 1770, until the matter of water supply solutions can be considered.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Peacekeepers Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.33 am): This month marks the 60th anniversary of the arrival of the first Australian peacekeepers in Indonesia in September 1947. Since then more than 75,000 brave Australians have served in various peacekeeping operations throughout the world. It is important that we recognise the important and significant role our Australian Defence Force and police force personnel have made to world peace and security, and they continue to do so. We owe all these brave men and women a debt of gratitude. With their skill and dedication they have helped thousands of people whose lives have been impacted by conflict. On behalf of the Queensland parliament, I would like to thank them for their service. I encourage members next week to wear the badge that has been sent to us by those organising the celebrations. As I understand it, the first Australian peacekeepers in Indonesia left on 14 September 1947, which is next Friday. I think it is important as a parliament that we acknowledge the peacekeepers’ contribution, and I encourage members to wear the badge to recognise what they have done for us. Council for the Australian Federation, Appointment of Director Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.34 am): I am also pleased to report to the House today that the Council for the Australian Federation has appointed Ms Jenny Menzies as director of the CAF secretariat. Ms Menzies has been selected as the best candidate for the Brisbane based position and will commence in October. I am delighted the headquarters will be here. She has extensive experience in public administration and public policy at both state and Commonwealth levels. In recent years she has led significant policy development initiatives including Queensland’s Smart State Strategy and the Queensland Arts Industry Sector Development Plan. Ms Menzies is currently the director of Policy Futures, a consultancy firm, and a research fellow with Griffith University’s Centre for Governance and Public Policy. She has published numerous research papers on public policy development and administration, and her experience in the development of forward policy agendas positions her to support CAF and to lead an effective and collaborative national policy agenda. Bearing in mind what I said earlier in the week about the need for a new Federation and for the states to delineate exactly what their roles are and for the Commonwealth to do the same, I think the position that Jenny Menzies will have as director in CAF will be a very important role in that delineation and the audit I mentioned. I want to congratulate Jenny Menzies on her appointment. 3114 Ministerial Statements 06 Sep 2007

Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.35 am): To save time this morning, I seek leave to incorporate some information and reports for the following ministerial statements: the Howard government’s failure to support Queensland clean coal; the Queensland economy; Rugby League World Cup and other associated events including Skills Stadium; electricity reform achievements; the Great Artesian Basin; water; the world pollution conference; the art prize that I am encouraging to promote the development of art in this state; the opening of the next round of regional events funding; the Smart Women-Smart State award winners; the international education awards; the Queensland export training and international education; the youth parliament and the history of Queensland. I seek leave to incorporate those details. Leave granted. Clean Coal Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.36 am): It is well known in this House that my government is committed to combating climate change and at the heart of that commitment is clean coal technology. We are putting our money where our mouth is. Together with industry we are investing $900 million in the development of clean coal technology. I was pleased to report to the House earlier this week that ZeroGen, the Queensland project investigating the use of a coal based gasification plant integrated with carbon capture and storage, has been successful in its first stage of testing. So I must admit I was somewhat surprised yesterday to hear that the Prime Minister has committed $15 million to the American FutureGen project. I want to be clear: I support the American FutureGen project and have said so in this House, and I certainly welcome the announcement. Queensland is also partnering with FutureGen and its clean coal technology development. However, I hope it is only part of the equation when it comes to the Prime Minister finally doing something about climate change. ZeroGen has approached the Commonwealth government on a number of occasions for funding support and has been knocked back every time. It is all very well to support FutureGen, which I do, but I say to the Prime Minister: where is the money for clean coal technology in Australia? Why is he not funding the project here? I have to say that there is an enormous sense of frustration about this. It is all very well to grandstand prior to a federal election—and I understand that, too—but we need to do more projects than just FutureGen. Yes, let us support FutureGen, but let us support Australian projects as well. In March 2006 an application for support from the Low Emissions Technology Development Fund was made and, despite funding a brown coal gasification project in Victoria, the Commonwealth Government would not provide any funds for ZeroGen. A revised business case was submitted in February this year and despite further detailed information being provided in May the Commonwealth Government has still not provided any response. So Mr Speaker, if the Prime Minister is really serious about investing in clean coal technology and the future of the coal industry in Queensland and other states—I hope he plans to dig much deeper into his pocket and use a bigger slice of his $17 billion surplus to help us develop this technology. While it is encouraging that the Prime Minister is finally recognising its importance, he is well aware that $15 million will do very little to progress what is a complex and cutting edge technology. I am also at a loss to understand why he still fails to recognise the importance of developing the technology here in Australia—in Australian conditions, using Australian coal and creating Australian jobs—to ensure we are at the forefront of clean coal technology development and implementation. Let’s be clear about this—Queensland has 300 years worth of coal left in the ground and an industry that employs 13,000 Queenslanders. Clean coal technology is critical to securing these jobs. I look forward to the Smart State benefiting from the Prime Minister’s new-found-interest in climate change and call on him to match Queensland’s $300 million investment in home-grown clean coal technology. Anything less would be scandalous. Queensland Economy Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.38 am): The Queensland economy continues to go from strength to strength, as the Deputy Premier said yesterday. Later this morning the latest jobs figures will come out. I am confident that our terrific track record will be maintained. The latest ANZ job advertisement figures released earlier this week indicate the trend number of job ads remains 3.1 per cent higher over the year to August. The low level of unemployment in the state, at a 30-year low, is one of the most significant achievements of my government. This is a great result and is supported by other data recently released including: • ABS data which shows retail trade grew by 10.5% over the year to July. This is the strongest annual rate in three years and the seventh consecutive month that annual growth has strengthened. • ABS data which shows the total number of dwelling approvals in Queensland increased for the twentieth consecutive month in July. Our annual number of approvals grew by 10.5% over the year compared to a national downturn of 2.4%. • Economic growth up 1.8%—6.6% higher than the March quarter in 2006. • Private investment up 3.8% in the June quarter to be 16.3% higher than a year ago. • Household consumption up 1.1% in the June quarter to be 3.7% higher than a year ago. 06 Sep 2007 Ministerial Statements 3115

Mr Speaker, Is it any wonder that business confidence is high. The August 2007 Sensis Business Index shows the level of business confidence in small to medium business rose by 3% to 67%. However, business was not as impressed with the Howard Government’s management of the national economy. They dropped 17 percentage points to 41% and perceptions for the year ahead declined 8 percentage points to negative 2%. It appears they can’t take a trick when it comes to a poll. Mr Speaker, These figures show we remain the engine room of the national economy. We have the best books in the country and industry recognises that the Smart State is a great place to do business.

Rugby League World Cup Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.38 am): I know we are all taking an interest in the Rugby League finals but I want to highlight what will happen next year because it will be an even better year. Not only will Skilled Park on the Gold Coast open; we will also play host to the 2008 Rugby League World Cup final as well as five premium games in the tournament. I am pleased to announce today that Queensland has secured an additional sixth match. Our own Kangaroos will take on PNG at Dairy Farmers Stadium in Townsville on 9 November. This is the second match which has been confirmed for Townsville. The other will feature England versus PNG on 25 October. For north Queensland this means a Rugby League bonanza with the Australian match expected to be a sell-out and the arrival of many English tourists who are following their team around the country. Fans will come to the games, stay for a holiday and enjoy the sights of north Queensland while spending their hard-earned pounds. North Queensland is again on the international Rugby League map. It is an exciting time for rugby league fans. The NRL finals kick-off this weekend and I am sure we will all be cheering on the Cowboys and the Broncos in their quest for the Grand Final. It has been a great year for all the Queensland teams and I especially want to acknowledge the terrific effort of the Gold Coast Titans in their debut season. For North Queensland this means a Rugby League bonanza with the Australian match expected to be a sell out and the arrival of many English tourists who are following their team around the country. Fans will come for the game, stay for a holiday and enjoy the sights of North Queensland while spending their hard earned pounds. It will mean jobs and a business bonanza in accommodation, business services, transport, retail and trade sectors. That is not to mention the fact that it will be seen by millions of television viewers around the world. I commend the Rugby League International Federation on this sensible decision.

We are obviously not the only ones that think Queensland has the best venues and best fans in the world.

Electricity Industry Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.39 am): A number of exciting reforms have taken place in Queensland’s electricity sector in the 12 months since my government was re-elected. On 1 July this year we started full retail competition of the state’s electricity sector, giving Queensland households and small businesses the right to choose their retailer. Already there are at least eight retailers actively competing for household and small business customers in Queensland. We have also boosted consumer protection to coincide with full retail competition. A new, independent Energy Ombudsman has been established. The Ombudsman has already taken 945 queries from Queensland energy consumers and has begun more than 320 investigations into disputes between customers and their energy suppliers. Full retail competition was supported by the sale of the retail arm of Energex and Ergon Energy’s contestable retail business. The massive $3 billion plus from the sales is now being invested, through the Queensland Future Fund, in key water, clean coal technology and other vital infrastructure projects right across Queensland. My government has implemented 40 of the 44 recommendations flowing from the Somerville report into electricity distribution and service delivery, with the remaining four being implemented on an ongoing basis. We are increasing Queensland’s power generation capacity, expanding gas generation in Queensland and pioneering research into clean coal technology. It is a great record of achievement in energy. 3116 Ministerial Statements 06 Sep 2007

Great Artesian Basin, Water Allocation Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.41 am): The Queensland government is set to release up to 17,200 megalitres of water as water licences from parts of the Great Artesian Basin. I table the relevant map of the area and the full details. Tabled paper: Map, undated, by Queensland Natural Resources and Water titled ‘Surat Basin management Areas of the Great Artesian Basin Water Resource Plan’. The decision to release the additional water follows an exhaustive water planning process and extensive consultation with all stakeholders to ensure the sustainability of the Great Artesian Basin is protected. The opportunity to obtain an additional water licence is likely to be of greatest interest to towns, feedlots, power stations and mines. So far most of the interest in this water is coming from the western Darling Downs and the Surat Basin. In the Surat Basin 7,200 megalitres will be available in the areas around Inglewood, St George, Miles and Roma. A further 10,000 megalitres is available across most of the wider Great Artesian Basin to supplement town water supplies and for significant projects including power stations and some large coal mines. The area that could benefit from this 10,000 megalitre release extends from Cape York in the north, south through Richmond and Longreach, to Birdsville and Goondiwindi and Miles in the south. This release of water is about ensuring Queensland’s prosperity while protecting the natural heritage and biodiversity of the Great Artesian Basin—and as always there are strong rules and conditions for its use. The first licences granted as a result of this water release are likely to be issued in the middle of next year. A detailed map of the Surat Basin release area and application forms are available from the Toowoomba office of the Department of Natural Resources and Water. Air Pollution Conference Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.41 am): I want to report that about 400 world experts on air pollution are heading to Brisbane for the 14th World Congress on Air Pollution which begins at the Brisbane Convention Centre this Sunday, 9 September. The five-day conference is the key triennial meeting of the International Union of Air Pollution Prevention and Environmental Protection Associations. The conference covers the full spectrum of air pollution issues at both local and global levels—including, of course, global warming and climate change. While the event has a strong international focus it will also generate enormous interest here in Queensland where we take these issues very seriously. Critical issues covered in this conference include future transport technologies, global warming, the Asian brown pollution cloud and the health impacts of air pollution. The conference has an impressive list of presenters including Dr V. Ramanathan, a pioneer of global warming research who discovered the greenhouse effect of CFCs and other manmade gases in the 1970s, and one of Queensland’s most eminent scientists, Professor Ian Lowe. I welcome the delegates to Queensland. Tabled paper: Media release, dated 6 September 2007, from the Premier and Minister for Trade titled ‘World focus on Brisbane for air pollution conference’. Premier’s Art Prize Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.41 am): I am also pleased to inform the House today that cabinet recently approved the establishment of an annual Premier’s Art Prize which at $75,000 will be one of the most significant contemporary art prizes in the country. This is part of the drive for the Smart State—to encourage creativity and innovation so that we are, through the creative industries, driving jobs. This is one of the reasons our unemployment level is 3.5 per cent. For example, the QUT Creative Industries Precinct at Kelvin Grove develops opportunities for job creation. The prize will build Queensland’s national profile as a leader in contemporary art and provide encouragement to local artists with an additional annual prize of $25,000 on offer for an emerging Queensland artist under the age of 30. The prizes will be for contemporary visual arts which encompasses painting, sculpture, installation and new media and provides a further opportunity to showcase the unique character of our world-class Gallery of Modern Art. This is designed to complement the Gallery of Modern Art. As Honourable Members know, Queensland is a dynamic State that celebrates knowledge and creativity. These prizes reflect how we have embraced Smart State on all levels, through the economy, through industry innovation and in developing and celebrating our diverse culture. The Queensland Premier’s Art Prize will be open nationally to artists resident in Australia or Australian nationals living overseas, while the emerging artists’ prize will be restricted to Queenslanders. The Premier’s Art Prizes will not only position Queensland as a leader in the promotion of contemporary visual culture, but will provide the opportunity for Australian visual artists to gain recognition and profile both nationally and internationally. At the same time, the prizes will build on the success of the Asia Pacific Triennial Exhibition of Contemporary Art and will contribute to the positioning of the Gallery of Modern Art as Australia’s pre-eminent venue for contemporary art. 06 Sep 2007 Ministerial Statements 3117

Queensland Events Regional Development Program Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.42 am): Round 14 of our successful Queensland Events Regional Development Program is now open. I encourage Queenslanders to apply and members to encourage it. This is an opportunity for event organisers outside of Brisbane’s metropolitan area to get extra assistance to help them grow or improve their activities. To date the funding program has distributed more than $8.9 million to more than 420 different regional events right across the State since I established it in 2001. This program is going a long way to building a diverse calendar of events throughout the year, with regional tourism, local economies and their communities being the winners. So many regional events have fantastic potential but what they need is that extra support and guidance to improve infrastructure, hire in some business development expertise for example, or develop a marketing plan. That’s exactly how this funding program helps. It is not a cash hand out but offers targeted assistance. As I said, Mr Speaker, Round 14 is now open and applications need to reach Queensland Events by February 1, 2008. Smart Women-Smart State Awards Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.42 am): Last Wednesday, 29 August the minister for women and I presented the Smart Women-Smart State Awards. These awards are in their fifth year and are an important way of recognising the state’s brightest and showing others what good role models are all about. As I have already sought leave to incorporate this I do ask members to have a look at those who won and their achievements as they are significant. I table two copies of the program as well. Honoured this year were high school and tertiary students, researchers, and women leading in every facet of Queensland’s business and community life. They are bringing cutting-edge skills and expertise to what have been traditionally male-dominated industries—in science, engineering, information and communications technology. Thankfully times are changing, Mr Speaker, and today’s women in Queensland are pioneering new directions and opportunities, and this year’s awards winners are among them. They’re working on projects as diverse as climate change, the environment, web technology, and the Ross River Dam upgrade. The Smart Women—Smart State Award winners shared a prize pool of some $32,000, thanks to strong support from sponsors, including government agencies, private organisations and tertiary bodies. I would like to acknowledge the work of the Office for Women and organisations supporting these awards, including Griffith University, QUT, the University of Queensland, Queensland Resources Council and TrackStar Alliance. Mr Speaker, most of all, I want to congratulate all of this year’s nominees for making a difference in the Smart State.

SMART WOMEN—SMART STATE AWARDS 2007 WINNERS *Lifetime Contribution to Science Award Anne Bourne—(St Lucia) A statistician with the CSIRO from 1969 to 1991, Anne has been a powerful role model for her colleagues. Authoring or acknowledged in over 20 papers, this Award recognises 82-year-old Anne’s dedication to science and entomology which includes giving her expertise and time to the research organisation 17 years after retiring. *This special award will not necessarily be given each year Secondary School Students Sponsored by Griffith University Sally Barrett—Southport The effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) on the shell development of ostracods Sally developed a cutting edge chemistry and biology project on the detrimental effects of climate change on marine organisms. Key evidence highlighted the hidden impacts of global warming. Undergraduate Students—Science Sponsored by Queensland Resources Council Alecia Carter—University of Queensland Complex association patterns and fitness benefits in female eastern grey kangaroos Alecia designed a computer program that analysed how female kangaroos interacted with each other. The computer technology she developed showed the benefits of relationships developed between individual female kangaroos. Undergraduate Students—Engineering Sponsored by Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering, Queensland University of Technology Helen Gorell—Arana Hills Design and construction of a mock circulation loop for future testing of an extra aortic balloon (EAB) Helen built a mock circulation loop designed to mimic the natural circulatory system of a human. This will help researchers evaluate how cardiac assist devices such as the C-Pulse (extra aortic balloon) work on a heart. 3118 Ministerial Statements 06 Sep 2007

Undergraduate Students—Information and Communication Technology Sponsored by CorpTech and Queensland Treasury Yvette Griggs—Townsville Rapid application development for microcontrollers using automatic code generation from graphical requirements with IMMERGE Yvette has developed a software program that makes it easier to program embedded computer systems. This was previously a time consuming and difficult exercise requiring lengthy experience in programming techniques. Yvette’s new system will allow a much wider range of people to successfully program embedded systems. Postgraduate Students—Science Sponsored by the University of Queensland Jennifer Firn (Camp Hill), Nikki Sims, Megan Ward and Alice Yeates—University of Queensland. Investigating the mechanisms behind costly and environmentally destructive weeds This group of PhD students are battling weed invasion using innovative research methods combining empirical research and mathematical modelling. Postgraduate Students—Engineering Sponsored by Queensland Transport and the Department of Main Roads Katrina McDonald—Toowong An experimental and finite element investigation of the biomechanics of vertebral compression fractures Katrina’s research investigates the mechanics of bone fractures associated with osteoporosis. Katrina aims to develop biomechanical techniques to better understand the processes leading up to, and following, vertebral compression fractures. Postgraduate Students—Information and Communication Technology Sponsored by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet Kaylene Clayton—Waterford PhD project and community service Kaylene actively promotes Information and Communication Technology careers to young women. Her PhD project studies the factors affecting the career choices of young people. It also offers practical advice on effective ways to encourage more people to study ICT. Women in Industry/Business—Science Sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency Professor Jennifer Stow—University of Queensland Novel therapies for inflammatory disease Jennifer’s research into cell biology may lead to cheaper alternatives to costly current treatments for chronic inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. Women in Industry/Business—Engineering Sponsored by TrackStar Alliance Anne Lavers—Townsville Ross River Dam Upgrade Project Anne project managed and oversaw the design and implementation of the Ross River Dam Upgrade Project. This project will result in increased storage capacity, meet international health and safety standards while maintaining bio-diversity in the area. Women in Industry/Business—Information and Communication Technology Sponsored by the Department of Emergency Services Tammy Halter—Brisbane CBD Absolute Data Group Broadcaster and R4i software Founder and sole Director of software company Absolute Data Group, Tammy identified a niche marketing opportunity in the global ICT marketplace. Her company helps businesses manage information through the use of technology, such as making content available on mobile handsets or through custom built mobile websites. Women in Community/Public Sector—Science Sponsored by Queensland Health Professor Linda Blackall—University of Queensland Innowatech Linda’s research on wastewater management will maximise Australia’s ability to control environmental pollution, recycle water and use and generate energy. She has shown that great savings can be made in water and energy by improving the operating process of wastewater treatment plants. Women in Community/Public Sector—Engineering Sponsored by the Department of State Development Lin Ma—Brisbane Asset health manager Lin’s work involves developing state-of-the-art methods and systems to monitor the performance and condition of major assets (machinery) to predict when they should be maintained so they don’t fail unexpectedly. Her systems help companies maintain safety and avoid unnecessary loss of production, while allowing them to plan most efficient use of resources. Women in Community/Public Sector—Information and Communication Technology Sponsored by the Department of Communities Dr Penny De Byl—Toowoomba ALIVE (advanced learning and immersive virtual environment) Penny is battling student boredom through her ALIVE project, which aims to make online learning more interesting for higher education students. She wants to improve existing online courses and make them more inspiring and exciting for students by integrating Web3D technologies. Tabled paper: Two copies of the Smart Women-Smart State Awards 2007 Program for 29 August 2007 by the Office of Women. 06 Sep 2007 Ministerial Statements 3119

International Education and Training Industry Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.43 am): Queensland’s international education and training industry contributes more than $1.4 billion a year to our economy. Last week the 2nd International Education and Training Industry Showcase Awards were held here at Parliament House. They recognise the important role our international education providers play. In the incorporation that follows there are details on all of that. Again, I would urge people to have a read because of the importance of it to the Smart State. In 2006 our universities, vocational colleges and schools had more than 61,000 international students from more than 100 countries. This sector’s economic returns are not the only significant feature either, Mr Speaker. They make invaluable contributions to the fabric of our institutions, our communities, international networks and global reputation. By focusing on best practice, the Awards demonstrate yet again the Smart State’s leadership. Mr Speaker, I’d also like to recognise the commitment across a number of departments: Education, Training and the Arts and State Development—and I my thanks to the Ministers for their ongoing efforts. Growing this industry depends on our ability to continue improving and promoting the international student experience. It is global students—including our own—their families and overseas governments who are looking critically around the world when it comes to making this important education investment decision. We want them to continue to think of Queensland first. Tabled paper: Media release, undated, from the Premier and Minister for Trade titled ‘Queensland celebrates education leaders: Premier’. Youth Peace Parliament Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.43 am): Youth Peace Parliament, in acknowledgement of the International Day of Peace, will be held in this very chamber from Monday, 24 September to Wednesday, 26 September. I urge members to support it. As Honourable Members would be aware, Friday 21 September is the International Day of Peace. Established by a United Nations resolution in 1981, it is an opportunity for Queenslanders, organisations and nations to create practical acts of peace on a shared date. The Speaker’s Green will host some 200 school students who will be sharing their messages of peace and joining in celebrations with Speaker Mike Reynolds. The Youth Peace Parliament will raise awareness of the International Day of Peace, and will educate students about peace and its role in democracy. Young people from all over Queensland will be attending, with Youth Members debating motions, holding question time and making speeches relevant to their local communities. On behalf of the Queensland Government, I thank the International Day of Peace Alliance Brisbane, the Parliamentary Service and Speaker Mike Reynolds for their involvement in the International Day of Peace events and Youth Peace Parliament—and I wish these events every success. Queensland History Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.44 am): I want to refer to the questions I was asked yesterday about the history of Queensland. As I said, I make no apology for ensuring that a definitive history of Queensland is written as part of the celebrations of our great state’s 150th birthday celebrations. I seek to incorporate more details, including some question time points, so that everyone understands the full circumstances. Dr Ross Fitzgerald is being paid approximately $280,000 for 41 months work on this important project. He will receive no royalties from the book. The entire budget for the project is in the vicinity of $900,000—this includes the wages of researchers, the cost of research and the general expenses that come with the project of this size. I look forward to reading the history upon its publication in 2009.

Question time points • The book developed for Queensland’s 150th celebrations will provide a balanced social, political and economic overview of the complete history of Queensland since its separation from New South Wales in 1859 through to today—the books are similar in concept but will be a different product. • In a review of the Raymond Evans book, mentioned in media reports this week, the Courier Mail’s Paul Williams said on August 4 that a lack of depth on literary, musical and other cultural icons might well hinder the book in its wider popular appeal. • Williams also says ‘In terms of recent political history there is brief coverage of the one nation phenomenon and (Premier) Peter Beattie political hegemony. There is no mention of the Labor’s landslides at the 2001, 2004 and 2006 State Polls— despite them being the most remarkable election outcomes since 1935’. • Ross Fitzgerald reviewed Dr Evans book positively. 3120 Ministerial Statements 06 Sep 2007

• Dr Fitzgerald feels his book will be more ‘popular’—meaning reading style. He points out he has written 28 books. • Madonna Duffy from the University of Queensland said “That Dr Evans book is more scholarly, academic (a good standard, well researched)—we are looking for a more lively, enjoyable and accessible read, but still based on sound and structured research” • UQP also feel there is room in the market for two books. • Dr Fitzgerald might be getting paid approx $280,000 but unlike other authorities he doesn’t receive royalties. Synopsis of Dr Ray Evans ‘A History of Queensland’ A History of Queensland is the first single volume analysis of Queensland’s past, stretching from the time of earliest human habitation up to the present. It encompasses pre-contact Aboriginal history, the years of convictism, free settlement and subsequent urban and rural growth. It takes the reader through the tumultuous frontier and Federation years, the World Wars, the Cold War, the controversial Bjelke-Petersen era and on, beyond the beginning of the new millennium. It reveals Queensland as a sprawling, harsh, diverse and conflicted place, where the struggles of race, ethnicity, class, generation and gender have been particularly pronounced, and political and environmental encounters have remained intense. It is a colourful, surprising and at times disturbing saga, a perplexing and diverting mixture of ferocity, endurance and optimism. Traveston Dam Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.44 am): I want to talk a little bit about the Traveston Dam. Ms Bligh interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I knew you were on side, Deputy. I support your visionary approach to this wonderful piece of infrastructure. The current opposition has been relentlessly critical of the Traveston Crossing Dam, a project vital to secure water supplies for south-east Queensland. Today I can share with the House two reports commissioned when the coalition was in power that advocate the construction of a dam in the same catchment. Gympie people will still remember the disastrous floods of 1973-74 which devastated their community. The Gympie council and the government promised to do something about the flooding and the then Queensland Irrigation and Water Supply Commission undertook two studies into possible solutions. The first report was received in 1977 and the second in 1980. That was the Bjelke-Petersen National Party-Liberal Party coalition. The Gympie council and the government promised to do something about the flooding and the then Queensland Irrigation and Water Supply Commission undertook two studies into possible solutions. The relevance of this is that many, including the member for Gympie, have said, ‘Where did this all come from? Who ever thought about building a dam there? No-one has ever thought about building a dam there before.’ Sure! The first report was received in— Mr Gibson interjected. Mr BEATTIE: You have just been caught out. The first report was received in 1977 and the second in 1980. An opposition member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: He is so rude as well. Both reports contain some very interesting information. This is dealing with flooding. We all accept that. The studies investigated a range of options including levee banks, fixing the downstream Fishermans Pocket construction and a major water storage facility on the Mary River 15 kilometres south of Gympie. You might be aware of the dam. This map shows where we are building the proposed dam. That is right: one of the options was to build a dam in the catchment of what is now the site of the Traveston Crossing Dam. It is the same catchment. Reports find that— Apart from providing flood mitigation a dam at this site would provide an assured supply of water in its own right. The authors of the reports even canvass some design elements. I will be up-front about this. The 1977 report notes— The dam site is located across a wide alluvial valley and there appear to be foundation problems, although at this stage these do not detract from the dam site. I am being up-front about the negatives. Importantly, it goes on to say— The solution is straightforward. An homogenous zone earth fill type embankment is proposed with a conventional spillway arrangement for the left abutment. That is how we deal with those alluvial issues. The 1980 report concluded that this dam was feasible but it would be expensive. They said it would cost $32 million. Because it was not built then, today we are looking at a cost in the order of $1.7 billion to build the same dam. Mr Messenger: Oh, come on. Mr BEATTIE: Please, even your own party knows you are a joke. The 1980 report also concluded that the costs could be reduced. We are still waiting for that other report to get through your joint party room. Remember the report the member for Burnett brought in the other day and Jeff said to him— Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Premier, please direct your comments through the chair. 06 Sep 2007 Ministerial Statements 3121

Mr BEATTIE: Mr Acting Speaker, you are quite right; I should do that. I should ignore him in the interests of good democracy. The reports also concluded that the costs would be reduced considerably if a major source of water supply was required in the future for irrigation, coastal town supply water schemes and—wait for it—Brisbane’s water supply. So way back in 1977 and 1980 a dam on the Mary River south of Gympie was seen as a viable option to augment Brisbane’s water supply. When I became aware of this— An opposition member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Stop being the village idiot. Government members interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Members on both sides of the House, the Premier has the call. Mr Messenger interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Burnett, I just asked members to refrain. I call the Premier. Mr BEATTIE: Through you, Mr Acting Speaker, I say to the member for Burnett: ‘You don’t know how valuable you are to us. We will be campaigning for you in the next election. We don’t want you to go. You don’t realise how valuable you are to us. You are a very good weapon for winning votes from one end of this state to the other.’ The good thing about it is that he does not even realise it. That is the most fundamental thing. Ms Bligh: It’s bliss. Mr BEATTIE: It is bliss, it is bliss, it is bliss! Mr Messenger interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Get on television! He likes my tie. That is good. Back in 1977 and 1980 a dam on the Mary River south of Gympie was seen as a viable option to augment Brisbane’s water supply. The only distressing thing about this report when I found out about it was the fact that the dam was not our idea. That means it was actually the— Mr Hopper interjected. Mr BEATTIE: All I am saying is that I was a bit distressed to find that it was not our idea. In other words, we have to actually acknowledge that it was an idea that came from the Bjelke-Petersen government. I have to say that that is a bit deflating for us, but it is an idea. Ms Bligh interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I take that interjection. It is an idea and now its time has come. The coalition government’s report recommended a 146,000 megalitre dam— Honourable members interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Mr BEATTIE: Such extraordinary rudeness! The coalition government’s report recommended a 146,000 megalitre dam 15 kilometres south of Gympie for flood mitigation. The Traveston Crossing Dam stage 1 will be a 153,700 megalitre dam 16 kilometres south of Gympie as the crow flies or 27 kilometres by river. So let us not hear any more criticism from the opposition leader on this vital water supply option. The coalition government knew this dam could be built and coalition governments since have received advice that it should be built. The Traveston Crossing Dam will provide water security for south-east Queensland. It is a great site for a dam, as proved by the recent rainfall. As recent events over the last years have confirmed, this is the best site. The dam should have been built here instead of Wivenhoe, but again Wivenhoe was built for flood reasons—exactly the case in terms of Gympie. So the Traveston Crossing Dam will provide water security for south-east Queensland. It is a great site for a dam, and the Queensland government has been aware of that fact since the 1970s. Mr GIBSON: I rise to a point of order. I would ask that the Premier table the reports that he referred to in his speech. Mr Beattie: I forgot! Mr ACTING SPEAKER: It is completely up to the Premier. Mr BEATTIE: Mr Acting Speaker, I can save everybody time. I actually intended to table it and I forgot and I sat down without doing it! I thank the member. I have it with me, and I table it. Tabled paper: Report, dated July 1977, by Project Planning Branch, Irrigation and Water Supply Commission, Queensland, titled ‘Mary River Gympie Flood Mitigation—Appraisal Study’. Tabled paper: Report, dated January 1980, by Project Planning Branch, Queensland Water Resources Commission, titled ‘Mary River Gympie Flood Mitigation—Summary report.’ More to the point, I will ensure that every member has a copy of it before they leave here today. 3122 Ministerial Statements 06 Sep 2007

Water Infrastructure

Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (9.51 am): I thank the Premier very much for talking again about the Traveston Crossing Dam, one of my favourite subjects. I would actually suggest that that report is worthy of letterboxing, at least in the Gympie electorate. But I am happy to advise the House that the water storage efforts of our government are not limited to the south-east. Last Thursday I opened a vital water pipeline feeding Queensland’s resource-rich Bowen Basin. This pipeline is expected to deliver up to 60 million extra tonnes of coal and another 4,000 jobs for the region. The Burdekin to Moranbah pipeline will transport water from the Gorge Weir to new and existing mines in the northern Bowen Basin. The 220 kilometre pipeline from Burdekin Falls Dam to Moranbah is one component of an overall pipeline project worth $300 million. This milestone demonstrates our government’s commitment to ensuring a reliable water supply for the future of Queensland right across the state. Not only will it guarantee a continuation of existing water supplies, it ensures that the rapid expansion plans for the region’s multibillion-dollar coal industry can be realised. While in Moranbah I also announced that the state government and the companies associated with the township of Moranbah and the Belyando shire have agreed in principle to supply up to seven megalitres a day of water from the pipeline to Moranbah for the 2007-08 financial year. In short, the first 5.5 million litres a day are provided to the town virtually free of charge. The additional 1.5 million litres a day is being made available to cope with urban growth in that township for which the council is being asked to pay, after state government and industry subsidies, around $240 per megalitre or less than 10 per cent of the delivered cost. Given that south-east Queensland residents are living with a daily water use averaging less than 140 litres a day, the water allocation to the township of Moranbah of around 800 litres per person per day is by comparison very generous. The pipeline, delivered by SunWater in partnership with six foundation users, began in late 2005 with about 300 workers involved in building the pipeline. They had to battle tough terrain, blistering heat, Cyclone Larry related delays and isolated conditions to ensure that the pipeline was laid in time. I commend every one of them on a job well done. Construction crews laid the pipe at an unprecedented speed, averaging 1.1 kilometres per day for nearly seven months to allow the economic boom of mining to continue. The overall Moranbah pipeline project also comprises two smaller pipelines—a 50 kilometre eastern pipeline from Moranbah to Coppabella which was commissioned in November 2006 and a 70 kilometre southern pipeline from Moranbah in the direction of Dysart which will be completed within weeks. The state played a major role in planning and facilitating the project and declared the Moranbah pipeline project as works under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act which helped to ensure the timely delivery of these projects by utilising relevant powers when necessary. This pipeline is one part of a total water supply solution for the Bowen Basin. SunWater is now set to carry out further investigations into the Connors River Dam project which will deliver further water security.

Fuel Subsidy

Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (9.55 am): Two weeks ago the Premier and I announced that the state government had established a commission of inquiry to determine why up to $125 million of the $541 million a year fuel subsidy is not reaching the pockets of Queensland motorists. We announced that former Queensland Court of Appeal judge and former Federal Court judge Bill Pincus QC will head the inquiry, which is to report by November. I can advise the House today that the office of the commissioner has been established and is located in the Brisbane Magistrates Court. The office of the commissioner consists of Commissioner Bill Pincus QC, counsel assisting PJ Davis SC and JM Horton, and secretary Kate Bannerman. An executive assistant to the commissioner and a document management expert are expected to start in the office on Monday, 10 September. Commission staff have been liaising with experts, including economists, and also investigating the practical operations of the fuel subsidy scheme. A web site—www.fuelsubsidycommission.qld.gov.au—is currently being designed and is due to be launched in the week commencing 10 September. The web site will include information on upcoming hearings, how Queenslanders can have their say and information on the inquiry and the commissioner. The terms of reference of the fuel subsidy commission of inquiry have been finalised and will be available on the web site. An opening statement is expected next week beginning 10 September. Dr John Fallon has been engaged to assist the inquiry by providing expert evidence on the opening day of the inquiry. I can understand the state’s fuel industry has changed, but I cannot accept that that means our motorists miss out. We established this commission to make sure that we as a government and that we as Queenslanders are getting the full value of our subsidy. I am confident that with the calibre of those working on the inquiry we will all have a clearer basis on which to make future policy decisions if necessary. 06 Sep 2007 Ministerial Statements 3123

Equine Influenza Hon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (9.57 am): The Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries through Biosecurity Queensland has been responding to the equine influenza outbreak in Queensland. The current update shows there are 31 infected properties. The properties are at Warwick, Minden/Rosewood, Goondiwindi, Tamborine in the Gold Coast hinterland and Brisbane’s western suburbs. The infected premises are in quarantine. There are a further 68 dangerous contact premises which may become infected properties. Significantly, all of the infections have been traced back to an equestrian event at Maitland and a campdraft event at Narrabri. More than 300 staff including inspectors, vets, SES volunteers, police and many others have been involved in the response operation. All are doing a first-class job and have been praised by industry. Under extremely tight restrictions, racing returned to Queensland yesterday at the Gold Coast meeting. The meeting was restricted to approved horses from the Gold Coast precinct only. All horses walked to the event from the precinct area. No floating of horses to the event was allowed. In addition, there were no spectators at the event. Queensland’s response has been swift, thorough and in accordance with the national AusVet plan. This is in stark contrast to the federal government and the federal minister for agriculture, Minister McGauran. We do not know when Mr McGauran learnt that there were infected horses outside of the AQIS quarantine centre at Eastern Creek. This is a very critical point. What we do know is that we were advised formally at the teleconference on Saturday, 25 August and we immediately took appropriate action, as did all other states. This is why we welcome the open inquiry. We will fully cooperate with the inquiry. In Melbourne’s Age newspaper on Friday, 24 August Mr McGauran said— We are determined that it get no further than the gates of the quarantine centres. He was saying that it was only in the quarantine centre. That is what he suspected. In effect, Mr McGauran was telling the state government vets to be alert but not alarmed. While Mr McGauran and his state National Party colleague the member for Toowoomba South peddled mistruths and attempted to pass the buck, the Queensland government got on with the job.

Queensland Ambulance Service Hon. N ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services) (9.59 am): The Queensland Ambulance Service is constantly working to build on the level of clinical care provided by our highly trained paramedics. For example, advanced care paramedics have recently commenced training in advanced procedures for diabetic emergencies using dextrose rather than glucagon. This new treatment provides a more controlled response by paramedics, delivering improved patient outcomes. Additionally, following on from a government election commitment, Queensland Ambulance Service paramedics now carry specific antibiotics to enable the early treatment of meningococcal. Since its introduction in November last year, seven patients have been administered the new drug for suspected or confirmed meningococcal disease. In October, the Queensland Ambulance Service is proposing to take another step forward in cardiac treatment. The service is investigating an initiative which will allow intensive care paramedics to administer a ‘clot-busting’ drug to patients who are suffering a heart attack. This is a huge leap forward for our paramedics and is at the cutting edge of cardiac care. These few examples of innovation in clinical practice demonstrate that the QAS is at the forefront of emergency pre-hospital care. On another matter, in the House yesterday the member for Kawana raised a particular ambulance response on the Sunshine Coast. During question time I asked him to provide me with the details of the case to enable the facts to be verified. Just before 5 pm yesterday afternoon—almost seven hours after question time and after the member had apparently found the time to talk to Channel 10 and the Sunshine Coast Daily—his office sent me a factually incorrect email to my office at Kedron. Mr DICKSON: I rise to a point of order. The information as requested was given to the office yesterday. The member’s response earlier— Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr ROBERTS: I understand the sensitivity of this matter for the family concerned and it is unfortunate that I need to further respond to this matter in the House today. However, like other members of the opposition, the member for Kawana has made claims that are factually incorrect and which cast a slur on the professionalism of our ambulance officers. Mr DICKSON: I rise to a point of order. He is casting aspersions upon my name and my role. I did not cast aspersions upon the organisation at all, just this government. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Again, there is no point of order. I do warn the member for Kawana about frivolous points of order. 3124 Ministerial Statements 06 Sep 2007

Mr ROBERTS: I had the opportunity to review the electronic report form relating to this incident and I can advise the House as follows. The patient in question called the Queensland Ambulance Service at 6.07 am on 3 September. The case was classified as a code 1, requiring a lights and sirens response. The ambulance was on the scene seven minutes later—not 20 minutes, as claimed by the member for Kawana. Also, contrary to media reports, paramedics offered to transport the patient to the closest hospital at Caloundra. However, the patient and the family voluntarily declined the offer of transport and advised that they would make their own arrangements. Approximately three hours later the Queensland Ambulance Service received another call to the same address. On the information provided to the call taker, this call was classified as a code 2C, which under ambulance protocols requires a response within two hours. I can report to the House that the ambulance was on scene 36 minutes later—well within the recommended two-hour response time. On this occasion the patient accepted transport and was taken directly to Caloundra Hospital. This record shows that the member for Kawana has completely misrepresented the facts of this case. The response from the Ambulance Service was professional, appropriate and well within the recommended protocols for urgent and non-urgent responses. Mr Schwarten: He should apologise. Mr ROBERTS: The member for Kawana should apologise to the House and to the professional ambulance officers concerned for his shabby, poorly researched and unprofessional approach to this matter. Mr DICKSON: I rise to a point of order. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Mr DICKSON: The minister should apologise to the people of Queensland. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Mr DICKSON: This is a seriously ill man— Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Mr DICKSON:—with leukaemia who is dying. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Kawana! I have not given you the call yet. Members come to order. There is a point of order. It better not be frivolous. I call the member for Kawana. Mr DICKSON: This is about a seriously ill patient dying of leukaemia. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr ROBERTS: Our ambulance officers work under extreme pressure in urgent situations and they make life and death decisions on a daily basis. They do an outstanding job and I commend them and thank them for their professionalism and commitment to providing quality care and responses in emergency situations. This case demonstrates that the opposition is not interested in the facts of the situation. They are more interested in a headline in the Courier-Mail or on the evening news. This is just one example of the inaccuracy of some of the recent reporting on ambulance matters that has been played out in the media primarily based on the misinformation provided by the opposition. I invite the media in future to verify the opposition claims before going to print. Boat Licensing; Kessels and Mains Roads Intersection Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (10.05 am): Boating is a popular pastime for many Queenslanders, and the number of new boats here continues to grow. Over the past five years boating registration has grown around five per cent each year. Within the next year, Queensland will top New South Wales as the nation’s boating capital. As the industry and opposition have acknowledged, Queensland has the toughest recreational boat licencing laws in Australia. I think in a number of areas and in the interests of our boating public there is an argument to make them even tougher. But this is something that the real experts—the tens of thousands of boaties on our waterways—should have their say on. I make no apology for introducing tough new boating laws during my time as transport minister. These include ensuring licence holders had to get out on the water and demonstrate their competency, unlike in other states or in years gone past when we heard stories of people turning up at a boat ramp with a carton of tinnies and getting a licence; requiring a separate jet ski licence; removing the loophole where large vessels that did not plane were exempt from recreational licences; and making it compulsory for children under 12 to wear life jackets in small boats underway and for all people to wear life jackets when crossing designated coastal bars. 06 Sep 2007 Ministerial Statements 3125

We have more people buying large vessels, some even as first time owners. Even Australia’s toughest licencing regime may arguably be insufficient for large recreational vessels. From tomorrow, Queenslanders will be invited to have their say about a range of initiatives that Maritime Safety Queensland has been discussing in close consultation with the industry. The Improving Recreational Boating Safety discussion paper looks at a broad range of issues for the boating community, including considering an extra class of licence for large recreational boat operators and examining additional compulsory life jacket wearing requirements. It also looks at whether jet skis that can travel greater distances should carry safety equipment required for recreational boats, such as flares and high- visibility fluorescent sheets to attract attention if people are in trouble in the water. The discussion paper looks at whether operators of boats over 15 metres should require a special licence. But if people think a special licence should be mandatory for boats of a smaller length, we would like to hear that. Queenslanders interested in boating safety will have until November to have their say. This discussion paper is not an overnight invention but the product of careful consultation and consideration over many months. The opposition said on Tuesday that it did not want the government to engage in any knee-jerk reactions. We will not. Any examination of this document will see the obvious time and work that has gone into it. But just as there will not be any knee-jerk reactions, we do not want stonewalling either. We just want the best system. The events of last Saturday were a tragedy and I again offer my sincerest condolences to all involved. I will not pre-empt the investigations into this incident by commenting on the potential causes. If there are lessons we can learn from this tragedy, we will learn them. As the marine industry and the opposition have noted, Queensland has the toughest recreational boating laws in Australia. But as I have said a number of times this week, if we have to strengthen them further in light of this investigation or as an ultimate result of this discussion paper, we will. The community would expect no less. I urge everyone interested in marine safety to get a copy of the discussion paper and have their say. Tabled paper: Discussion paper, dated September 2007, by Maritime Safety Queensland titled ‘Improving recreational boating safety’. There is every chance that this will be the last sitting of state parliament before a federal election is called. Prime Minister John Howard has finally realised that infrastructure matters and is playing desperate catch-up to Kevin Rudd’s road-building agenda. One commitment I would like to draw attention to is federal Labor’s promise on Monday to fund the $300 million upgrade to the interjection of Kessels and Mains roads. In the Courier-Mail and the Southern Star this week Liberal member for Moreton, Gary Hardgrave, criticised Labor’s $300 million plan to rid one of the city’s most congested arterials of gridlock. I found it surprising that Mr Hardgrave did not support a plan to rid local roads of congestion. So I took a look into what Mr Hardgrave has said about this intersection previously and it turns out that he has more views on this than the Mount Gravatt Lookout. In a letter to residents in July 2004, Gary Hardgrave said— By contrast, the Howard Government is spending almost $1.5 billion on a package of measures which will deliver new and better roads for Queensland including ... Federal funds to finance Queensland Government plans to rebuild the Mains and Kessels Road intersection. He criticised it, but then he supported it. A Courier-Mail article on 28 September 2004 titled ‘Labor pledges to free up bottleneck in five years’ noted Labor’s commitment to fix traffic problems at the Mains and Kessels road intersection. As the local Liberal MP and Howard government minister, as he was at the time before he was dumped, Gary Hardgrave said that Labor’s announcement meant that it had caught up with the coalition which promised in June to fund an upgrade of the intersection through its AusLink plan. So in 2004 he promised it and he said that he wanted it. But now he has turned 180 degrees and says that it will be bad for locals. Ms Spence: He’s a desperate, failing man. Mr LUCAS: He is desperate. He is playing catch-up, because the only thing the Howard government is committed to is the $1.5 million study. So Mr Hardgrave is $298.5 million behind federal Labor. Mr Hardgrave blames everyone for his inability to secure road funding. He blames me, he blames the Goss government, he blames the member for Mansfield and he blames other state politicians. I think Mr Hardgrave has a particular dislike for the member for Mansfield. I suspect that is because it was the member for Mansfield’s idea, not Mr Hardgrave’s idea, to ban local trucks which had no reason to be there from using local roads. The state government has done that. It is removing trucks from local streets that do not have a reason to be there. But even Mr Hardgrave understands that most of the trucks in the area have legitimate reasons to be there—to go to Garden City, et cetera. In one of his Hardgrave reports from 2004 he said— As the BUC consultations a couple of years ago reported, 75 per cent of the trucks along this route are locally sourced. 3126 Ministerial Statements 06 Sep 2007

So the state Labor government has removed trucks from local roads that do not have a reason to be there. The federal Labor Party has committed $300 million to upgrade the intersection. All Mr Hardgrave has to offer is complaints, excuses and a bucket full of empty promises. I table the indictment. Tabled paper: Article from the Southern Star, dated 5 September 2007, by Stewart Mulligan titled ‘Labor to ‘fix traffic woes’. Tabled paper: Letter, dated July 2004, from the Hon Gary Hardgrave MP addressed to Residents relating to the use of the Brisbane Urban Corridor for national freight. Tabled paper: Article, undated, from an unknown source relating to Auslink. Tabled paper: Article from The Courier Mail, dated 4 September 2007, by Sam Strutt titled ‘Underpass vow hits where it will hurt’. Surgical Deaths in Public Hospitals Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (10.11 am): Later today I will launch a project that will see all surgical deaths in Queensland public hospitals be independently investigated. This is yet another state government measure to build a better, safer health system. We are providing $1.15 million over two years to fully fund the Queensland audit of surgical mortality, which has already kicked off around the state. For the first time in Queensland all surgical deaths in public hospitals will be independently investigated and we expect all private hospitals to participate as the project is phased in. The audit is being carried out by the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons and is a breakthrough project for patient safety and surgical excellence. A total of 15 public hospitals from the Gold Coast to Cairns, where the majority of public surgery takes place, will take part in the audit over the next two years. Over time, when this project is finetuned we expect all surgical deaths in every hospital, both public and private, to be independently investigated in Queensland. The audits will improve both patient safety and surgical competence by encouraging greater transparency in healthcare outcomes. The findings will allow us to determine how deaths during or after surgery occur and how to develop ways to ensure that unnecessary fatalities are significantly reduced, if not fully eliminated. But this initiative is not about blaming or finger-pointing. Any report that is published will not identify any surgeon. That is not the intent of the project. It is about sharing information, identifying risks and learning from past experiences. On that basis I encourage all surgeons in Queensland to fully cooperate with the audit so that they can make valuable contributions towards building a safer system. This audit complements a range of other Beattie government strategies to address patient safety and to become more open and transparent about the care provided in our hospitals. These include the formation of the independent Health Quality and Complaints Commission, the new quarterly public hospitals performance reports, and the first annual report on critical incidents and sentinel events, which was released earlier this year. Electoral Enrolment Hon. KG SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland) (10.13 am): I am concerned that many Queenslanders are not aware that the Howard government’s laws will dramatically reduce the time they have to enrol to vote once the federal election is called. At the next federal election, there will no longer be a full week to enrol after the writ for the election is issued. People enrolling to vote for the first time and those people re-enrolling must now do so by 8 pm the day the writ is issued. Previously, enrolments could be made for a week after the writ was issued. I am concerned about the impact that this will have on the young and people living in rural and regional areas. Recent estimates are that there are more than 250,000 Queenslanders eligible to vote, but are not enrolled, and 250,000 votes spread across Queensland federal electorates could be the difference between who forms the next federal government. I fear thousands of Queenslanders of all ages who are eligible to vote and who want to vote will be denied a vote at the federal election because of the changes. There has been a recent advertising campaign by the Australian Electoral Commission highlighting the changes. I urge all Queenslanders who have not enrolled to vote, or who have to do so, to enrol now and to not wait for the Prime Minister to call the election. Assistance Dogs Hon. FW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Communities, Minister for Disability Services, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships, Minister for Seniors and Youth) (10.14 am): The Queensland government is committed to ensuring that we have contemporary laws that enable people with a disability to access public places. That is why the government is developing legislation about access rights for people with a disability who rely on guide, hearing or assistance dogs. Currently in Queensland, guide dogs and hearing dogs have entry and access rights to public places such as shops, supermarkets, restaurants, movie theatres, libraries and public transport under the 06 Sep 2007 Ministerial Statements 3127

Guide Dogs Act 1972. However, assistance dogs are not recognised under Queensland legislation in the same way as guide dogs. There is confusion about whether assistance dogs have the same entry and access rights to public places as guide dogs. Assistance dogs are growing in popularity and people with a disability are seeking to have their dogs accompany them more into public places. Assistance dogs perform a range of activities to help people with a disability in their day-to-day living. They open and close doors, turn light switches on or off, and help with shopping or fetching items beyond their human companion’s reach. A draft bill has been developed, taking into consideration feedback received during public consultation conducted in 2003 and 2005. In essence, it would give the same right of access for assistance dogs as is currently provided for in law for guide dogs and hearing dogs. The proposed provisions included in the draft bill will assist people who rely upon guide, hearing and assistance dogs to have independent access to the community; to provide a simple and consistent means of identifying properly trained guide, hearing and assistance dogs; and to ensure the quality and accountability of dog trainers. As is currently the case for guide dogs and hearing dogs, there would be certain places in which assistance dogs would not be allowed, including food preparation areas and sterile areas in hospitals. Disability Services Queensland is presently undertaking targeted consultation with key stakeholders on the draft bill. Once this consultation process is completed, it is intended to seek the government’s approval to introduce the bill into the House for debate. Today at lunchtime—at 12.30 pm—on the Speaker’s Green I will be joined by Tom and Jerry, two golden labradors. Tom and Jerry are trained assistance dogs and with their trainer will demonstrate some of the things that assistance dogs can do to help people with a disability. Members are invited to attend. Indigenous Communities, Domestic Violence Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (10.16 am): Police working in our state’s Indigenous communities are dedicated to working with their local communities to address local issues. It is a sad fact that domestic violence is especially prominent in some Indigenous communities in the state’s north. In fact, in the town of Normanton, where 60 per cent of the population is Indigenous, in 2006 there were over 300 reported incidents of domestic violence. One in three adults in the town were also involved in protection orders last year, either as the respondent, the aggrieved or the named person. That is a shocking statistic. This year the local police in Normanton have taken it upon themselves to find a new way to address this tragic trend. It was identified that community ownership of the problem had to be established. Under the guidance of the local officer in charge, Sergeant Dave Rutherford, police are now working with the local Rugby League team, the Normanton Stingers, to promote the non-violence message. The Domestic Violence—It’s not out game! campaign commenced in March this year, with members of the Normanton Stingers and their supporters wearing guernseys and wristbands carrying the campaign logo and with banners displayed at all football games. Mr Johnson: It’s a good one, too. I see them on Imparja TV all the time. Ms SPENCE: I will get to that. Furthermore, team members have agreed to make a personal commitment to desist from domestic violence and they have decided that if an individual commits domestic violence they will be subject to playing bans and ultimately excluded from the team. Team players are also appearing in television advertisements on the Imparja network, as mentioned by the member for Gregory. The message is finally getting through. Between March and July this year there has been a 64 per cent reduction in breaches of existing protection orders, compared with the same period last year. Let us hope that the footballers can keep it up in the off season as well. Vigilante Attacks Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (10.18 am): Today, the Port Douglas and Mossman Gazette has highlighted a vicious attack on a woman at Wonga Beach, which local police are describing as the most violent and cowardly attack that they have seen in the Douglas shire. I would like to table this article from the newspaper for the benefit of members of the House. Tabled paper: Article, undated, from unknown source titled ‘Brutal assault—detectives slam cowards who took ‘justice’ into own hands’. Just after 7 pm on 26 July this year the woman went for a walk alone with her dog from her home address. While she was walking through a park she was approached by two men in a vehicle who, allegedly identifying her, got out of their vehicle and knocked her to the ground and savagely kicked her until she was unconscious. During this attack the woman heard the two men say that she was being beaten as retribution for the alleged offences of one of her family members. As a result of this disgraceful vigilante attack the victim, this poor lady, suffered broken ribs, severe bruising and cuts to her head, neck, shoulders, back, arms and legs. She lay in the park for two hours before she was able to stagger home. 3128 Travelsafe Committee 06 Sep 2007

Police are appealing for public help in bringing the two cowardly vigilantes who attacked this woman to justice. This is the world that the member for Burnett and the opposition is trying to create with his petition to have a public register of sex offenders. Opposition members interjected. Ms SPENCE: That is what this is about; make no mistake. Mr MESSENGER: I rise to a point of order. I find those remarks offensive and ask that they be withdrawn. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: The minister will withdraw. Ms SPENCE: I withdraw, but I stand by the fact that this is the sort of violence that will only escalate while the opposition continues to go down the path of advocating for public registers of sex offenders. Land Registry Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Water and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (10.21 am): Strong market demand is increasing the workload of the state’s land registry, or titles office, within the Department of Natural Resources and Water. This demand is being driven by sustained population growth and major development right across Queensland. Despite this demand, my department’s titles office is continuing to deliver outstanding customer service. During the 2006-07 financial year demand for title related information searches set a new record high with more than 3.11 million information searches provided to customers. During the same period over 1.03 million title transactions were registered, the second highest volume on record. Indeed, demand for land registry services has more than doubled since the early 1990s. Historically, the last month of the financial year is usually the busiest for title transaction lodgements. In June this year the registry experienced a record high for the number of average daily lodgements. In fact, for the three months from June to August, monthly average lodgement exceeded 105,500, again another record. Given this, it is indeed an achievement that more than 90 per cent of all title transactions, including many of a complex legal nature, are registered in less than five days. The web also plays a big part in our customer service with 97 per cent of information searches conducted over the internet. Also around 30 per cent of lodgements are received electronically over the internet. These provide ready access to timely, quality land registry services, and reduce uncertainty and cost for property owners, investors and other stakeholders. During 2006-07 more than 221,000 transfers of property occurred in Queensland worth more than $111 billion and they were registered. It shows no signs of slowing with Queensland continuing to attract interstate migration and further investment. During 2006-07 around 50,000 titles were created for new lots throughout the state, an increase of over 1,100 on the previous financial year. Projections indicate that Queensland’s current population of over 4.1 million will grow to around five million by 2020. Queensland is already widely recognised for having one of the most secure and efficient land registry operations in the world. In the years to come we will continue to enhance our systems, integrate cutting-edge technology and continue conducting world-class technical training and professional development for staff right across the state. In this way we will continue managing increasing workloads with no decline in overall service standards.

TRAVELSAFE COMMITTEE

Report Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy—ALP) (10.24 am): I lay upon the table the Travelsafe Committee report No. 50, Investigation into child deaths and injuries from low-speed run-overs. Reversing vehicles and small children can be a lethal combination. Low-speed run-overs are the most frequent cause of accidental death to children aged one to four years after drownings and motor vehicle passenger deaths. On average, nine children up to five years of age die as a result of these accidents in Australia each year. For each fatality at least another 20 children present to hospitals with injuries from being run over by slow-moving vehicles. Unfortunately, there is no quick fix. However, from the work of the committee it is clear that public education is the key. All drivers need to be aware that children are in danger whenever they are near a moving vehicle and that a low-speed run-over can happen in a split second. The committee has made seven recommendations to help reduce future tragedies. Today at 1 pm in front of Parliament House the committee will hold a demonstration to show how difficult it is to see a child while reversing. All members are welcome and are encouraged to attend. I commend the committee’s report to the House. Tabled paper: Travelsafe Committee Report No. 50 titled, ‘Investigation into child deaths and Injuries from low speed vehicle run- overs’, September 2007. 06 Sep 2007 Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee 3129

MEMBERS’ ETHICS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE

Report Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (10.25 am): I move— That the House note report No. 82 of the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. The report concerns an allegation that by a letter to a member a legal firm attempted to improperly interfere with the free performance by the member of his duties as a member. It deals not only with the specific allegation but the wider issues of privilege associated with legal correspondence to members concerning their activities in the House. The committee takes allegations of this nature very seriously. Although there was no finding of a breach of privilege or contempt in this case, there are circumstances in which correspondence from a legal firm could result in a finding of a breach of privilege or contempt. In this case the committee accepts the legal firm’s assurance that neither the firm nor their client intended to improperly interfere with the free exercise by the member for Moggill of his duties as a member. The committee notes the firm’s unreserved apology to the member for Moggill and the parliament but would emphasise that in itself an apology or retraction would not preclude the committee from making a finding of a breach of privilege or contempt in the future. Each case before the committee will be judged on the facts before it. Nonetheless, the committee agrees with the Speaker that those in the legal profession may not realise how inherently intimidating an action a legal letter in itself is, especially if the tone is not moderated or rights recognised. Those in the legal profession may not be aware that an attempted interference with a parliamentary proceeding or a member’s rights may constitute contempt of parliament. Honourable members may not be immediately aware of issues of privilege associated with legal correspondence related to their actions in this House. Both issues are addressed in this report. There appears to be a limited understanding, indeed ignorance, by the legal community about the principles of law relating to the powers, rights and immunities of the parliament, its committees and members. This may be due to the limited number of cases involving members of parliament or parliamentary proceedings. It could also be due to an absence of a component covering parliamentary privilege as part of legal practice education. As a person who completed the legal practice course just last September, I can assure members that issues surrounding parliamentary privilege are simply not covered. The committee therefore will be writing to the Queensland Law Society, the Bar Association of Queensland and to those law schools offering legal practice and bar practice courses in Queensland about training legal practitioners and law students in the principles of law relating to parliamentary privilege. This training should cover statute law, especially section 9 of the Constitution of Queensland, sections 8 and 9 of the Parliament of Queensland Act and case law relevant to the operation of parliamentary privilege. As well as raising awareness among the legal profession, honourable members also need to be aware of how to manage correspondence from legal firms relating to their activities in the House. The committee recommends that this information be provided as part of the new members’ induction program. I commend the report to the House. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (10.28 am): I rise to second the motion. This report raises important issues of privilege associated with correspondence from legal firms addressed to members regarding their activities in the House. The chair of the committee mentioned the need to educate legal practitioners and law students about the principles of law relating to parliamentary privilege. I fully support this and I believe it needs to be ongoing. One of those fundamental principles of parliamentary privilege is freedom of speech. In the Westminster system, indeed in any parliamentary system, the right of elected members of parliament to speak without fear or favour is one of the pillars of democracy. Although there was no finding of contempt in this case, to attempt to intimidate a member in his or her parliamentary conduct by threats has long been held to be contempt in the Westminster system. Here in Queensland our standing orders list as an example of contempt sending a threatening letter to a member on account of their conduct in the House. I go back to the words of the Speaker who, in referring the matter to the committee, said— Those in the legal profession may not realise how inherently intimidating an action a legal letter in itself is, especially if the tone is not moderated or rights recognised. There is anecdotal evidence that a number of members of this House have received correspondence from legal firms on account of what they have said in this House. Legal firms, acting on behalf of their clients, often want the member to identify those who may have provided information to them, and the letters I am told can have a threatening tone. This could impact on the ability of elected members to represent their constituents and others. Letters from legal firms can intimidate those wanting to raise issues with members for fear of legal action. 3130 Questions Without Notice 06 Sep 2007

In turn, members may not raise concerns in the House or may back off and not pursue matters to the fullest to protect those who do not enjoy the full protection of parliamentary privilege. All members of the Legislative Assembly need to be aware of the scope of parliamentary privilege applying to their performance of their duties as a member, including the appropriate action to take if they receive correspondence from legal firms. Members should be provided with this information as part of the new members’ induction program. In conclusion, with rights come responsibilities. Members need to respect the privilege of this House by exercising care and raising issues in this House in a responsible way. With those comments, I commend the report to the House. Motion agreed to.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Before calling the Leader of the Opposition, I would like to acknowledge in the public gallery students and teachers from St Augustine’s College in the electorate of Bundamba, which is represented in the chamber by Jo-Ann Miller.

Superior Industries Mr SEENEY (10.31 am): My first question without notice is to the Premier. The government provides tens of millions of dollars in assistance to entice foreign companies to come to Queensland, yet the government has not assisted the Brisbane family run company Superior Industries, which employed 33 people and built world-class ambulances for QAS for 43 years. Why has the government not provided any assistance or any tenders to Queensland’s traditional ambulance supplier and thereby has forced this Queensland company out of business? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for the question. As he would be aware, tendering is done in a very honest and open process in my government. I know that is very foreign to the National Party, which basically did it on brown paper bags, but let us move on. An honourable member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Well, we understand how that all works. There are two issues here. The first issue is: do we encourage enterprises to move here from time to time to create jobs for Queenslanders? The answer to that is yes. We only do it, though, on a specific basis and the basis is jobs. We do not willy- nilly give anybody money. We have encouraged Virgin Blue to come here. There was a package to assist them, and I stand by the decision to encourage Virgin Blue to come here. There are many decisions like that, but they are linked specifically to the number of jobs, and if they do not meet that jobs target then the assistance is withdrawn. There are all sorts of bank securities to provide that. That is one of the reasons why our unemployment level is 3.5 per cent and nationally it is 4.5 per cent. That is why we have the lowest level of unemployment in 30 years and that is why we make John Howard look good. That is the first point. The second point I want to make is this. In terms of a tendering process, of course we have a purchasing policy, and we have a series of strategies to encourage Queensland companies. However, we have to think about what happens to taxpayers. Taxpayers have got to get value for money, and therefore there are two key principles here. Mr Seeney: They didn’t get to tender. Mr BEATTIE: I am happy to answer your question. Mr Seeney: There was no tenders for them. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, you have asked your question. The Premier is answering. Mr Seeney: I am just clarifying it. Mr BEATTIE: If you want to be rude, just be rude. If you want me to answer the question, let me answer the question. There is a state purchasing policy. There is a strategy where we encourage people, but out of the tendering process obviously we have got to get value for money. Superior Industries has supplied ambulance vehicles to the Queensland Ambulance Service for some time. However, on 11 May 2007 the managing director of Superior Industries wrote to the minister advising that the manufacturing plant would close by the end of the year. The QAS has allocated a significant proportion of the build and fit-out work for the Ambulance Service to Superior Industries. 06 Sep 2007 Questions Without Notice 3131

In the past two financial years, the company received 53.5 per cent of the total allocation to Queensland body builders. The QAS has appreciated the long-term relationship that has existed with Superior over many years and wishes the company well in any future endeavour. The QAS will continue to proactively promote the Queensland economy by ensuring a significant proportion of the build is allocated to local suppliers with a demonstrated capacity to build to QAS requirements. From July 2003 to July 2007, more than 60 per cent of the total vehicles supplied for QAS purposes has been from Queensland suppliers. QAS purchasing strategies are based on the State Purchasing Policy and evaluation criteria to evaluate offers based on price and delivery lead time. Queensland Ambulance Service Mr SEENEY: My second question without notice is to the Minister for Emergency Services. The minister made much in the debate in the House last night about his promise for increased spending to avert the ambulance crisis, including the promise of 140 new ambulance vehicles. Now that the Queensland family company that was the traditional builder of world-class ambulances for more than 43 years has been forced to close because it could not get a chance to tender for the government’s work, isn’t the minister’s promise of 140 new ambulance vehicles this year totally undeliverable? Where will the minister get 140 new ambulances from, and when will they be delivered? Mr ROBERTS: The Premier outlined in his answer to the question that Superior Industries was one of a number of companies that have been tendering for work within the Queensland Ambulance Service. He outlined that the policy of the government is to, wherever possible, provide support for local companies. I do not have the precise names of all the other companies that tender for the Ambulance Service, but I understand there are at least three or four other companies that currently tender for ambulance vehicles in this state. I have every confidence that the capacity of builders both within Queensland and in other states is there to supply those vehicles. I want to take the opportunity again just to reiterate to the House that, yes, the last budget did provide funding for an extra 140 vehicles, and that is a significant step forward for the Ambulance Service. It will provide about 100 vehicles to replace existing vehicles and 30 to 40 new vehicles which will be additional vehicles on the road. One of the issues the government has acknowledged on a number of occasions in this House is that we recognise the increasing pressure on our ambulance officers. We have not just recognised that over the last few weeks; that was recognised well before the last budget. The last budget delivered an additional $50 million, and one of the significant elements of that was to provide an additional 250 ambulance officers to service the increasing demand in Queensland and, as the member has outlined, an additional 140 vehicles. I am confident that with the capacity of both the Queensland industry and the national industry, because we do source from interstate as well, we can provide those vehicles. Equine Influenza Ms MALE: My question without notice is to the Premier and Minister for Trade. Queenslanders have been impressed by the attitude of horse owners stranded with their animals in Warwick because of the horse flu. Can the Premier advise the House of any measures the Queensland government is taking to make this difficult time easier for them? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for the question, and I know she has many people in her electorate who are involved in the horse industry, hence her interest. She has raised matters with me privately as well. I am pleased to announce this morning that I have approved an additional $100,000 to help people trapped at Morgan Park in Warwick. Under the national standstill, people are free to come and go; however, horses must remain where they are to try to stop the spread of the dreaded horse flu. We all know that that means remaining where they are for 30 days after the last infection, which is a long time. Many of the owners at Morgan Park have chosen to stick with their horses, which is completely understandable. When I visited there with the minister, Tim Mulherin, and the local member, Lawrence Springborg, that was one of the clear messages we got. They have bred, trained and nurtured them and understandably want to give them the tender loving care only an owner can provide. We understand this. While we are helping with expert veterinary care if the owners do leave, we are trying to make their life more comfortable if they choose to stay. The extra money I have announced today will cover items such as food and incidental personal products. This money is in addition to the $20,000 I announced when I visited Morgan Park with the minister for primary industries and the local member, Lawrence Springborg, last week. I am advised that, despite the poor weather, people remaining at Morgan Park are in good spirits. There have been lots of volunteers erecting horse exercise yards, the one-stop shop remains busy, and our counsellors in Queensland Health, Lifeline and Red Cross all report that people are holding up well. I was very impressed by the ‘she’ll be right’ attitude of everyone when I visited, and they were in great spirits. They really are great Queenslanders. 3132 Questions Without Notice 06 Sep 2007

I should say that my department, in partnership with the DPI, has spoken to those who are employed in the public sector—state government employees, federal employees and council employees—and asked for leniency from their department while they are there, and I understand that by and large that has been successful. I have to say that I was particularly impressed by the attitude of the member for Southern Downs. The former Leader of the Opposition was constructive in trying to look after and represent his constituency, and I thank him for that partnership. We did put politics aside and I think that was a constructive attitude. Naturally, he advocated strongly for the people there, and I acknowledge that, but I do want to publicly thank him for being constructive because, frankly, at the end of all of this what we needed to do was help the people—help them on the ground—and that is what we did in partnership. I am indicating that provision of an additional $100,000 today. I say to the minister and to the local member that I expect them to provide advice as to how best that money should be spent. We will continue to do what we can to help them. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that he might be able to take a leaf out of the former leader’s book. Riverside Expressway Miss SIMPSON: My question is directed to the minister for transport. According to the documents released under FOI regarding the Riverside Expressway, inspections were undertaken in 2001 and then in 2003 when structures were rated as poor due to defects, and no action was taken nor full inspections made until 2006 when it was still rated as poor. I ask the minister: hasn’t he deliberately downplayed the seriousness of the 2003 inspection reports in order to cover up the failure of his government’s maintenance program for the state’s busiest bridge until it was in crisis three years later? Mr LUCAS: The Riverside Expressway not only has a record of being a first-class motorway; what this government has done in relation to the Riverside Expressway has been openly transparent. I take it the member is talking about the incident about a year ago when the ramp was rotating. Is that what the member is talking about? Miss Simpson interjected. Mr LUCAS: Right. So she is not talking about any particular issue. Please tell me. I am inviting an interjection. Tell me with respect to what. Miss Simpson: There was a range of issues— Mr LUCAS: I will save the honourable member from further embarrassment. The Riverside Expressway is subject to regular inspection. Indeed, one of the things that I did, despite being criticised by the opposition when we had the issue of movements in the ramp off the bearing last year, was take immediate action to close the Riverside Expressway in order that safety investigations might be urgently undertaken. Not only did I do that; I tabled all the maintenance documents immediately to put them into the public domain. All the maintenance documents that were given to me by my department were tabled in the public domain. Not only that; we then had the Riverside Expressway independently audited. And we had that again independently audited. That audit indicated in relation to the Riverside Expressway and those ramps that they were totally safe to operate in their current environment, and the only issue in the future would be if a government decided to increase the load ratings on the Riverside Expressway. That is what we did. What was I accused of by the Leader of the Opposition at the time? Overreacting. That is what I was accused of. I say to the House now that we will put safety first, second, third and fourth. If the honourable member has any specific issue with respect to any structure, please put it forward and I will have it responded to—not by someone who is not even capable of putting forward the facts of what she claims but by independent engineering experts in Main Roads or elsewhere. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Yeerongpilly, I acknowledge in the public gallery students and teachers from Lindum State School in the electorate of Lytton, represented in the chamber by the Hon. Paul Lucas. Russia-Australia Business Forum Mr FINN: My question without notice is to the Premier. The Russia-Australia Business Forum at parliament yesterday was very successful. Can the Premier outline the benefits of selling the Smart State to the world? Mr BEATTIE: I can, and I thank the Russian business organisations which partnered with us in the development of trade opportunities with Russia. As I indicated last night at the state reception, in three years Russia has dropped from being our 41st export destination to our 21st. We need to continue to do that. The singers and the dancers performed effectively last night. I thought it was very effective. I intend to visit Sydney tomorrow to attend a luncheon with the Russian delegation, including the Russian president. 06 Sep 2007 Questions Without Notice 3133

I have always encouraged members of parliament to go to the world, because I think it is important that they share in the experience of getting global development, information, education—and heavens knows we all need it. But I was intrigued to see an article in the press this morning titled ‘Call Home, Kev’. This is not about Kev’s travel per se, because I think he needs to broaden his mind, although he nods off in here and I do not know what is wrong with his mind. But this is really a matter of leadership. The article states— To add to confusion about the purpose of the trip, the Rugby World Cup begins on Saturday morning Queensland time but Mr Seeney says he and Mr Lingard are due in the Torres Strait on Sunday ... We will be keeping a very careful eye as to whether he is back on Sunday. As we know, leaders approve overseas travel. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition. Mr BEATTIE: The article continues— Mr Seeney said Mr Lingard had approached him about the trip and indicated it was an official parliamentary trip related to sports ... We have not approved any DTA for this, so presumably he is paying his own way. It is not official because he has not asked for DTA. Mr Seeney is quoted as saying— ... this organisation was organising a tour to France coinciding with the beginning of the rugby and he would be away for this week ... When he came and saw me and asked me for leave I asked him how do I join this organisation and he said ‘I don’t know, I joined 20 years ago’. Mr Seeney said he was unaware whether any of the trip would be charged to the taxpayer. ‘I don’t know what his travel allowance arrangements are,’ he said. Ms Bligh: He is supposed to approve it. Mr BEATTIE: You are supposed to have approved it. If it is an official trip, you are supposed to approve it. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Please direct your comments through the chair. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, I warn you under standing order 253. Mr BEATTIE: This is about leadership. When you are a leader and it is an official trip, you approve the program. Pontius Pilate over here, Kevin Lingard, said, ‘Listen, digger, I’m going overseas. Don’t dare ask any questions.’ Instead of saying ‘Show me the program’, the Leader of the Opposition asks ‘How do I get on the gravy train?’ Talk about standards. He says, ‘Whatever you like. How do I do it? Show me the way.’ Time expired. South East Freeway, Elizabeth Street Ramp Mr JOHNSON: My question is directed to the honourable Premier. I refer to the documents tabled by the minister for transport and also those provided to the opposition under FOI relating to the cracks appearing in the ramps on the South East Freeway. I seek leave to have those documents tabled. Despite a number of references to damning photos taken in 2003 of cracks near the Elizabeth Street ramp, the crucial photos themselves are suspiciously missing from the documents. Has the Premier ever been shown these photos of cracks in the Elizabeth Street ramp taken in 2003? In their absence now, is this part of his government’s culture of cover-up? Tabled paper: Bundle of emails and reports regarding the Riverside Expressway Mr BEATTIE: Mr Acting Speaker— Mr Lucas interjected. Honourable members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I suggest that I be allowed an opportunity to answer the member for Gregory’s question. I do not think it is any secret that I personally have a lot of respect for the member and I take his question seriously. Let me answer his question. No, I have not seen any of the photographs. Bearing in mind that I am not the line minister, I do not think the member would be surprised by that. He was a former minister for transport, and I think under those circumstances he would understand that the Premier of the day does not necessarily see them. So, no, I have not. 3134 Questions Without Notice 06 Sep 2007

Naturally I have kept an eye on this in partnership with the minister. This is about the Riverside Expressway and I will go through the details as I know them. It was built in the early 1970s and finished in 1974. Design was advanced for that period as very limited computer analysis was available. I think people understand that. It is currently carrying over 100,000 vehicles per day, which is a lot of vehicles. Under my government it was resurfaced with asphalt on 14 October 2006. During the resurfacing a 60 millimetre vertical movement was noticed in the deck expansion joint on the river end of the Ann Street ramp. The Ann Street ramp was closed on the morning of Tuesday, 17 October 2006 to allow the inspection of bearings using an under bridge inspection unit. The ramp was resting on one of two bearings at the river end and a small crack of 0.04 millimetres was observed in a construction joint three metres from the end. This is when the minister and I went for a walk along this and inspected it. I think that was on television. A bridge failure in Montreal just two weeks before, 3 September 2006, where a freeway bridge collapsed killing five motorists, indicated safety had to come first. The expressway was closed on Tuesday afternoon, 17 October, until engineering investigations proved it was safe. Member for Gregory, we took the position that it was better to be safe than sorry. While people were inconvenienced, I think it was the most sensible way to go. Lord Mayor Campbell Newman gave 100 per cent backing to the decision to close the Riverside Expressway, citing recent fatalities from a bridge collapse in Canada. Four independent experts were called in immediately to assist with instrumentation and analysis of the ramps. We got experts in to have a look. They included professor of civil engineering at UQ Peter Dux, analysis consultant Dr Nick Stevens, and Dr Rob Heywood. I will not name all of these experts but we can provide the information to the member if he wants. After two days the reason for the rotation was confirmed by outside experts as differential temperature effects and the ramps were open to light traffic on Friday, 20 October 2006. It is clear that this problem was inherent in the design. It was not caused by a lack of maintenance. That was the conclusion. Further analysis continued to ensure that the single bearings supporting the ramp ends were safe for heavier vehicles. This work was supervised by Professor Dux and was completed in February. All restrictions on normal truck traffic were removed on 25 February 2007. That is the heart of what I know about it. As I said, I have a great deal of respect for the member for Gregory. If there is more information both the minister and I would be happy to provide it to him. That is what I know.

Springbrook National Park Mrs REILLY: My question is to the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure. Could the Deputy Premier please inform the House of the progress of the government’s efforts to acquire ecologically sensitive land in the Springbrook region? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question and for her very keen interest in the Springbrook area and for the preservation of some of the most precious parts not only of Queensland but also of this country. I think she is very lucky to have this very beautiful part of our country in her electorate. Securing the future of Springbrook’s World Heritage area is important to this government. This area is a remnant of the Mount Warning volcano and is a remnant of our world 23 million years ago. It is home to some unique flora—the Southern Ochrosia, the Antarctic Beech, some of which I understand are 3,000 years old—and the forest is a home to the rare Alberts Lyrebird. Unsurprisingly, this area was declared World Heritage listed in 1994. Since 2005 our government has made funds available—firstly through the 2005 budget and then those funds were augmented as part of an election commitment to acquire on a voluntary basis land for conservation purposes both in the south-east corner of the state and in Cape York. In total $39 million in funds have been expended or are available for the voluntary acquisition program. So far we have purchased 427 hectares of land in this area with an extra 87 hectares under negotiation. All up, we believe we can add 700 hectares to the national park estate in the Springbrook area, growing the protected estate on the Springbrook Plateau by more than 50 per cent to almost 2,000 hectares. The Australian Rainforest Conservation Society has been contracted under licence to the state government to undertake scientifically based restoration programs to rehabilitate as much as possible that land which has been cleared over a period of time and which has now been voluntarily sold to the government to reclaim a part of this very precious rainforest area. Not surprisingly, when we move in and provide funds to make voluntary acquisitions the local community has questions about that. They have been very keen to find out what the government’s long-term plans are for the area. I thank the member for Mudgeeraba, Di Reilly, for the work that she has been doing to make sure that her local constituency and her local community understands the government’s vision for this area. 06 Sep 2007 Questions Without Notice 3135

There are claims that the government is somehow motivated by a desire to shut down businesses or to lock up the World Heritage area. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we want to do is expand this beautiful part of the world for future generations to enjoy in even greater numbers than they are now. To ensure that the community is involved in this process we have established a broad based reference group to keep the community informed of purchases and the program. The first meeting will be held on 12 September and will be chaired by a senior department of environment official and comprise representatives of the EPA, Springbrook Landcare—contrary to some assertions that they are being left out—the Springbrook and Wunburra Progress Association, the Springbrook Mountain Community Association, the Springbrook Chamber of Commerce, Gecko, ACRS, the Gold Coast City Council and local businessman Colin Greatorix. Water Assets Dr FLEGG: My question without notice is to the Deputy Premier and Treasurer. On 9 August the Deputy Premier told this House— The way the GOCs provide a dividend to the government is that after they have invested in asset management and after they have paid their employees and after they have met all their operational costs, the government takes an 80 per cent share of the dividend and it should. That is what they are there for; to generate revenue for the state budget. Is this the policy that the minister will apply to the bulk water assets she is seizing from councils? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. Firstly, can I confirm that as I outlined on 9 August this government encourages our GOCs to make a profit. We think that is a good thing. We expect them to operate as efficiently as possible. We expect them to return value to the taxpayer. I remember a time when the Liberal Party of this country thought profit was a good thing. It would appear that the Cossacks on the other side have changed their mind on this policy, but we will not be. In relation to our water institutional reforms I can confirm, as I have already confirmed in the House and in public statements, that the bulk water assets will be transferred to the state government and held in a statutory authority. A very large component of those assets will be the assets we are currently in the process of building, including the Traveston Crossing Dam, the pipelines and the desalination plant. I have already outlined to the House that we will see the pricing arrangements for those assets done on a rate of return that will cover the costs but not make a profit. We anticipate around a four per cent rate of return, which is a break-even rate of return. In relation to the other assets that are transferred, we will be compensating councils on the basis of the value of forgone revenue. As I think is only reasonable in those circumstances, we will then be charging for water from those assets at exactly the same rate as we compensate the councils for them. Members would not expect, on behalf of the taxpayers, that we compensate councils at a certain rate of value forgone and then somehow charge less so we see taxpayers in a situation where they will pay more for an asset than they are able to recover. We certainly will not be seeking to profiteer out of this. Each council’s assets will be valued on the basis of their current rate of return. That will be different from council to council. I will certainly be putting that on the public record when we have gone through this process with each and every council. In relation to any dividends back to government as a result of all of that, obviously we would expect all service and maintenance delivery standards to be met and for the first time ever we will actually be setting those standards not only for the bulk water but also for the distribution network of the pipes. That is precisely one of the reasons we think it is important that it should be one single network of pipes. After all of that, if there is some return to budget, as currently happens with councils, then of course that should come back to budget. We would certainly be using those funds wherever possible in the first instance to ensure that all maintenance standards are met and where there needs to be further investment into bulk water storages that those investments are made. Where those funds can be applied to reducing the price of water that is what they should do. Gold Coast, Health Services Mr LAWLOR: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. Minister, the Beattie government is embarking on the largest health infrastructure program in Australia, including three new tertiary hospitals. Could you please update the House on planning for these hospitals, including the $1.2 billion Gold Coast University Hospital? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the member for the question and acknowledge his ongoing interest in one of the most exciting projects in Australia today, and that of course is the $1.2 billion Gold Coast University Hospital. Queensland’s health system is undergoing some major physical changes and over the next number of years it will be almost unrecognisable with significant upgrades throughout the state and of course three new tertiary hospitals. I am pleased to inform the House that the new hospitals on 3136 Questions Without Notice 06 Sep 2007 the Gold and Sunshine coasts and new Queensland Children’s Hospital worth a total of $3 billion are on track. Last month we welcomed the successful teams of consultants commissioned to plan and design the children’s and Gold Coast hospitals. Consultants have also been commissioned to start the planning phase for the Sunshine Coast Hospital and develop a business case as part of the public-private partnership evaluation process. The size and complexity of these projects attracted interest from some of the industry’s most experienced consultancy companies. I am confident that we have appointed the best consultants available in Australia with the expertise and proven track record needed to deliver our vision. In other achievements, the Premier and I have recently announced the preferred site for the 750- bed Gold Coast University Hospital at Parklands. My department has begun negotiations with landholders to acquire the preferred site, and I am advised that these meetings are progressing well. I am also advised that these negotiations will not impact on the project’s schedule. Meanwhile, at the same time clinical service planning for the new hospital is also underway. On the same day as the site announcement, the first two-day planning workshop commenced. Queensland Health is also working with the Office of Urban Management to complete a Gold Coast University Hospital and knowledge precinct master plan by the end of this month. The master plan will maximise opportunities to integrate the hospital and nearby infrastructure such as the rapid transit system for the benefit of the community. During the week I note that in the Gold Coast Sun under the headline ‘Angry MP wants answers’ the opposition health spokesperson said that he would be demanding the state government and Queensland Health give the public a full account of what its plans are for the Gold Coast hospitals. He went on to make a range of other claims. I just note that today is Thursday and that he has one chance left to make good on his public pronouncements about demanding answers from the government, although given the content of the answers so far perhaps I have given him the answers that he needs. So once again I have let him off the hook. In relation to the new children’s hospital, a health services plan has been drafted and will be distributed for broader consultation later this month. This will inform government and the community of the range of services the new hospital will deliver when built. The design phase has also commenced, with the first of a series of master planning workshops held last week. During master planning the project team will determine how the buildings fit on the site, the size and location of different departments and how the hospital will link with existing areas in the Mater precinct. On the Sunshine Coast— Time expired. Infrastructure Projects, Wages Pressure Mrs CUNNINGHAM: My question without notice is to the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure. Minister, businesses in my electorate and elsewhere have been affected by the premium wages paid by contractors on the government’s water projects—that is, at least $600 per week for a living away from home allowance, $70 an hour for 18 months and $3,000 in the hand excluding penalties. Was any consideration given to the impacts on existing pipe welding businesses and the like in Queensland when the government’s ‘build at any cost approach’ became an imperative? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. There is no doubt that there is a lot of pressure in the labour market with unemployment standing at around 3.5 per cent. It is certainly the case that employers right across the state in a whole range of industries, including those areas that the government is active in not only in major projects but indeed in health and other areas, are under a lot of pressure and there is certainly no doubt that that puts pressure on wages. I can assure the honourable member, however, and everyone else in the House that the assertion that we are building at a ‘whatever cost attitude’ is not true. We are pursuing a value for money approach and working with major companies to ensure that these projects come in on time and come in within the allocated budgets. We do not make any apologies for doing what we need to do to get the people that we need in a very hot market to build the projects that will make sure that we have the water that we need. There seems to be some suggestion that if we paid lower wages we might be in a position to secure the people that we need. That is just ridiculous! It is absolutely ridiculous! We have paid what the market requires us to pay, and there should be no surprise about that. We know that those opposite believe that wherever possible people should be paid less than they are worth. We know that they believe that. In fact, they should legislate federally to guarantee that people are paid less than they are worth, but that is not the view of people on this side of the House. We do not believe that we should be overpaying, but we believe that people should be paid the market value for their skills. In any market at any time that will always be the case. Obviously markets will fluctuate and the cost of labour will go up and down according to the availability of labour. We are in an environment where we have secured the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years—again, something about which the other side of the House cares little, if anything. Those opposite have never cared about unemployment. They have been unconcerned about thousands of Queenslanders being unemployed. It has been one of our priorities from day one, and we have delivered on it. 06 Sep 2007 Questions Without Notice 3137

Mr Johnson interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory. Mr Johnson: These WorkChoices; they’re good, aren’t they? Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory, you do not have the call. Ms BLIGH: I take the interjection from the member for Gregory—another self-confessed lover of WorkChoices putting it on the parliamentary record. Mr Johnson: Yeah, and you can’t cop it because you know it’s the truth. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory! Ms BLIGH: They love it out in your area. Let us just see how the workers of Gladstone vote when they get a chance to vote on WorkChoices. Mr Johnson: They like it! Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory! I call the Deputy Premier. Mr Johnson: Thank God for— Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory, I warn you under standing order 253. You have had a fair go. I call the Deputy Premier. Ms BLIGH: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. I can only assert again to the member for Gladstone that the workers who are working on our major water projects are working above and beyond in many cases what would reasonably be expected. They are working extra hours. They are working on weekends. They are doing long shifts. They are laying pipes at record rates, and I take my hat off to them and certainly they are worth every single cent. Child Protection Week Mr MOORHEAD: My question is to the Minister for Police and Corrective Services. Minister, parents in my electorate, like many others in Queensland, are concerned about the potential for children to be preyed upon while using the internet, particularly while using new web sites like MySpace, Facebook and YouTube. Given that it is Child Protection Week, can the minister please the inform the House what police in this state are doing to protect our children? Ms SPENCE: I thank the member for Waterford for the question. I am pleased to congratulate police who will be winning two awards after question time this morning when the Minister for Child Safety gives out awards for Child Protection Week. The first award is going to Detective Sergeant Murray Ferguson who works in the Child Protection Unit at Doomadgee. He is receiving an award for the work that he has done in that community working with the elders and children at schools and the hospital on child protection issues. The second award is going to Task Force Argos for its initiative of Surf Safely. Members might remember that last year in Child Protection Week Argos launched Surf Safely, which is an online education tool for school students aged between nine and 14. In the last 12 months officers from Argos have delivered their presentations to 1,900 students and distributed 35,000 Surf Safely help and hint cards. So that is a big effort by those officers. Other police have also been in schools talking about that particular program. Two years ago Task Force Argos launched the Who’s chatting to your kids? booklet. It is this week going to launch the third version of that booklet. Members should be aware of that booklet and get them from the police if they are interested in distributing them in their electorates. Also this morning I want to announce that since May police from Argos have conducted raids to execute 28 warrants targeting the possession and distribution of child exploitation images. Operation Stingray has involved investigators from the North Coast, South Eastern, Metro North and Metro South regions and has resulted so far in 16 people being charged with offences including possession, distribution and producing child exploitation images. Only this morning police raids have resulted in two people being charged with possession and distribution of child pornography. During the operation, more than 800,000 child exploitation images and movies have been seized. The operation is ongoing and the police will have more details on their arrests later on today. Gold Coast Hospital, Cardiology Unit Mr LANGBROEK: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. Can he confirm that the cardiology department at the Gold Coast Hospital is understaffed every day and waiting lists are therefore longer due to staff organising their rosters so that they can see public patients in their private practice clinics? 3138 Questions Without Notice 06 Sep 2007

Mr ROBERTSON: Obviously I do not have the details of the rostering arrangements of every hospital and every service that we provide in our hospitals throughout the state. However, based on what I can gather from what the member intimated yesterday and again today, he is referring to the fact that, as has been historically the case, many of our surgeons operate private practices as part of their contract to supply services in the public area. How they organise their shift rosters is a matter for those services, and indeed those hospitals, to determine based on established practices, contract arrangements and meeting particular benchmarks. Those benchmarks are a feature of the new budget arrangements that the opposition has been so critical of as we roll out performance budgeting so that we can be assured that for the money that we invest in our public hospital system we actually get appropriate returns and appropriate throughput of patients through our various services, both medical and surgical.

Despite those very positive moves to bring a new level of transparency to our public health system, we have had the opposition criticise the move to that performance based budgeting. I do note, more broadly speaking, as I noted in my previous answer, that some very brave statements were made publicly by the member for Surfers Paradise about what he was going to hold the Beattie government to account for this week. This was indeed his last opportunity to bring those matters to the attention of the parliament, but, again, he has failed to do so. Once again, he has tricked and has been less than honest with the media on the Gold Coast about what he in fact says and does in this place. If we are talking about a new level of transparency, openness and honesty, then perhaps that should actually start with the member for Surfers Paradise.

Mr Seeney: If you can’t do anything else shoot the messenger. It’s always an indication when you’re in trouble.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, you have been formally warned under standing order 253.

Liquor Licensing, Community Events

Mrs KIERNAN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading, Wine, Industry Development and Women. Can the minister please inform the House how the Liquor Licensing Division works with regional communities in organising major events to ensure that they are family safe events? Ms KEECH: I thank the honourable member for Mount Isa for the question and recognise her hard work and great support of community events in her electorate. Contrary to reports in some regional media outlets, the Liquor Licensing Division of my department supports under 18s joining with family and friends to enjoy a day at the races and other major events. Any restrictions placed on who can attend community events and race meetings are a response from event organisers to liquor licensing requirements that alcohol should not be supplied to under 18s at these events. Patrons at these events expect to enjoy themselves and to be able to do so in a safe environment. They do not expect to be subject to drunken groups of young people behaving inappropriately, as has occurred at some previous race meetings and events. Liquor Licensing works closely with organisers to develop an event management plan that draws on strategies from other events and considers the issues specific to that community and event. The member for Mount Isa has reported to me on the impressive results when the community works with the Liquor Licensing Division of my department in planning for a major event. The recent Mount Isa Rodeo, which attracted 26,000 people, was a family-friendly, fun event with no injuries to patrons, liquor licensing officers or police and with fewer than six arrests. Local police say that when it comes to crowd behaviour, the 2007 rodeo was the best year ever. My department and the police were very pleased with the community response, saying that all those who attended did so in tremendous spirit. The event organisers and the community can be very proud indeed of the success of this year’s event. The local paper, the North West Star, noted in its editorial that the consultation between Liquor Licensing and the event organisers led to ‘less fights, less abuse and a more family-friendly rodeo with people able to roam around the grounds without fear’. I have been advised that police are strongly supportive of the consultation strategy, urging all large regional community events to follow a similar plan. Regional members of parliament have a role to play here. They need to be urging their local community organisations to start working early with the Liquor Licensing Division to ensure all community events are as successful and safe as the Mount Isa Rodeo. The Queensland government recognises that community events play a vital part in regional community life and is keen to ensure the continuing success of these very important events. 06 Sep 2007 Questions Without Notice 3139

Local Government Reform Mr HOBBS: My question is to the Premier. Is it not true that the Premier has done a secret deal with the unions to set up a statutory authority to employ council workers and that this is a key reason behind his agenda for forced amalgamations? If his claim that amalgamations are really about efficiencies, will he guarantee that council employees will, in fact, continue to be employed by councils and not through a statutory authority or any other similar structure? Mr BEATTIE: I have always been a little intrigued by the member for Warrego. I must admit it goes back some years. I am up front about what we are trying to do here. I thought I should leave no doubt about the government’s position on this, and I think the Leader of the Opposition has asked me several questions about this matter this week. This conspiracy theory that he is running around is not true. I make no apology for doing everything I possibly can to protect Queensland workers from WorkChoices. I make absolutely no excuses for that. The member knows that we challenged some matters in the courts involving councils—and I do not recall all the details—who wanted to go down the road of WorkChoices. We challenged that. We are opposed to WorkChoices. I think we just have to accept that that is a philosophical difference between us. I regard it as the law of the jungle. I think it exploits people. I do not think it is conducive to family life. I do not think it is conducive to a happy home life or a happy environment. I am totally opposed to it. I believe in work security for workers and I make no apology for it. As I said, the conspiracy theories are not true. Let me make it clear that I and my government will do whatever we can to protect workers and their families against WorkChoices. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr BEATTIE: We did not say we were going to do any of that. What I am simply saying is that we will do whatever is appropriate within the law to protect workers against exploitation. However, let me talk a little bit about amalgamation. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Warrego! You have asked the question. Mr BEATTIE: I was getting a little frustrated that I might not have the opportunity to use this so I am really pleased for the member’s question. I have noticed—and I have said this repeatedly—that councils are getting on with it. I was intrigued to see a report in the Jimboomba Times, an international journal as many members would know, with the headline ‘Rally fails to draw a crowd’. It states— Organisers of a rally against council amalgamations said they were disappointed with the turn out. About 12 people— some rally!— turned up to the rally on Friday night organised by community group, RAIDE. Group member Vince Sawyer said the turnout was not indicative of residents’ views on amalgamations. Obviously they just did not want to turn up. Ms Bligh: Whose electorate is it? Mr BEATTIE: Whose electorate is this? This is Kevin Lingard’s. It is interesting as Kevin Lingard is quoted— Mr Elmes interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Noosa! Mr BEATTIE: No, he was out with Charlie Doyle having lunch on the Champs-Elysees or somewhere like that. Mr Elmes interjected. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Noosa! Member for Warrego! Mr BEATTIE: Charlie Doyle took him to lunch on the Champs-Elysees. Ms Bligh: A little Veuve Clicquot. Mr BEATTIE: C’est la vie. I notice he was quoted in the Beaudesert Times. The member for Burnett said— We accept that there are some councils who want to do what is happening now. There is no doubt about that. He said— ... in some cases council amalgamations were the right idea. No wonder the member for Beaudesert has been sent overseas. No wonder the Leader of the Opposition was so happy to say, ‘Listen, Kev, out of here. Go off to the Champs-Elysees. Go and have a free meal with Charlie Doyle. Get out of here.’ Time expired. 3140 Questions Without Notice 06 Sep 2007

Osprey Nests, Oak Beach Mr O’BRIEN: My question is to the Minister for Mines and Energy. While Ergon Energy is well known in north Queensland as the maintainer of its regional electricity network, I am now aware of another role that the energy provider has taken on. Is it true that crews are hard at work trying to relocate three osprey nests on top of power poles at Oak Beach in my electorate? Can the minister provide parliament with a birds-eye view of this exercise? Mr WILSON: I thank the honourable member for the question and acknowledge in this House what a tremendous community worker he is and the interest that he takes in the operations of Ergon no matter how unusual they might be. I also congratulate the honourable member on being this year the joint winner of the Cairns and District Referee of the Year Award. Crews from Ergon Energy’s Mossman depot are doing everything in their power to preserve these osprey nests. The osprey have apparently taken a liking to power poles at a resort at Oak Beach, which is located between Port Douglas and Mossman. The Ergon crews are relocating powerlines lower down existing poles so that the nests are not disturbed. Osprey are impressive birds of prey, but large bird’s nests such as these have the potential to cause power outages. That is why it is important to look at ways to reduce that likelihood. Live line crews are working to reconfigure high-voltage conductors to make sure that they are as far from the nests as possible. The osprey nest on the pole near the resort has become quite a tourist attraction. Last year Ergon had a similar encounter with a nesting white-breasted sea eagle. In that case cross-arms were rebuilt slightly lower on the pole to protect them. But for the ospreys, Ergon used live line techniques so as to not cause power disruption. It is a win-win: the ospreys get to keep their nest and the power supply is secure for the rest.

Currumbin Special School Mrs STUCKEY: My question is to the minister for education. I refer to a report on page 2 of the Sunday Mail of 2 September, which I table. Tabled paper: Article from The Sunday Mail, dated 2 September 2007, by Kay Dibben titled ‘Boy sues aide for kicking in school’. The story refers to a teacher aide accused of kicking an intellectually disabled boy. The report concerns me because the school is within my electorate and also because of my role as shadow minister for disability and child safety services. The recommendations of the Education Queensland internal investigation of this case released under freedom of information state that the teacher aide involved should be subjected to disciplinary action, should not be permitted to work at the school farm as the risk to the organisation and students is too great, and should perform his duties only under the supervision of a teacher in a traditional classroom of a special school. However, I am told that the teacher aide continues to work unsupervised at the school to this day. Why have these recommendations not been implemented? Why was the teacher aide not removed or suspended pending the outcome of the six-month investigation? Mr WELFORD: I do not have the details of the specific case concerned and I have not read the article in the Sunday Mail. Indeed, I do not read the Sunday Mail. But the lifelong vendetta that the member for Currumbin has against Currumbin Special School concerns me. Mrs STUCKEY: I rise to a point of order. I find the minister’s comments offensive and I ask him to withdraw. Mr WELFORD: I withdraw. Members of the House need to be aware that the member for Currumbin never wanted the Currumbin Special School to be located there in the first place. She never wanted to— Mrs STUCKEY: I rise to a point of order. Once again, I find the minister’s comments not only offensive but untrue and I ask him to withdraw. Mr WELFORD: I withdraw. I simply invite anyone who wants to to talk to the parents of the school. They will tell them the history. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The minister did withdraw. Mr WELFORD: I did withdraw out of courtesy for standing orders. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Again, an unreserved— Mr WELFORD: I withdraw. I will look at this case. I do not intervene in individual cases such as this to supervise the disciplinary action that the department has instituted. That is just not the role of the minister. My job is to make sure that proper procedures are in place to ensure that proper disciplinary action is taken in appropriate circumstances and that the rules in relation to codes of conduct on behalf of teachers are properly complied with. 06 Sep 2007 Questions Without Notice 3141

The member for Currumbin has not raised this matter with me previously. If there were specific recommendations arising out of the disciplinary action that have not been complied with, then obviously I would expect them to be complied with. I have had no evidence brought to my attention, except through the grandstanding of the member for Currumbin here today, that there would be noncompliance. Mrs STUCKEY: I rise to a point of order. I find the personal reflection once again offensive and I ask the minister to withdraw. His comments are also untrue. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I did not hear the comments. If they were directed at the member, please withdraw. Mr WELFORD: I withdraw. Far be it for me to suggest that four interjections in three minutes is grandstanding. Time expired. Feral Pigs Mr WETTENHALL: My question is to the Minister for Environment and Multiculturalism. Can the minister advise if there have been any recent initiatives that her department has undertaken to help reduce feral pig numbers in north Queensland? Ms NELSON-CARR: I thank the member for Barron River for the question. Feral pigs are a major economic and environmental challenge for both landholders and the communities in north Queensland, including the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service. I can report that the campaign against feral pigs is being stepped up, with the government contributing $150,000 over two years to boost feral pig management on private properties— Mr Robertson: It has real grunt. Ms NELSON-CARR: It has real grunt—on private properties adjacent to the Wet Tropics World Heritage area. The funding of $75,000 for each of the next two years will go to Terrain Natural Resource Management to help boost its trapping exercises. That funding will complement the $4.5 million that is already being spent on pest and weed management this year. Terrain Natural Resource Management is a not-for-profit public company that is funded from community, corporate and government resources. It aims to support land and water management in the Wet Tropics region. The organisation has elected to use the money in the Herbert River catchment zone in harmony with the EPA’s program on protected lands in the Wet Tropics. A government member: They’ll do a good job, too. Ms NELSON-CARR: They will. This funding enhances the broad approach to feral pig control on and off protected areas. It reinforces the EPA’s strong commitment to neighbouring landowners to deal with feral pigs. In addition to daily feral pig management by park rangers, the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service is carrying out a three-month trial feral pig management program in the Wet Tropics region using experienced external contractors. These measures are designed to complement the efforts of Terrain Natural Resource Management and QPWS rangers to capture, humanely destroy and remove the animals from the protected area estate and to provide further data about their numbers. Terrain National Resource Management will use this dedicated two-year funding to identify activity hot spots and augment existing feral pig management efforts. In line with its strong support for feral pig management outside the protected area estate, QPWS has more than doubled to 37 the number of traps that it makes available free of charge to neighbouring landowners. The Environmental Protection Agency takes feral pig containment very seriously. It is committed to working in partnership with the community to achieve control objectives. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Before calling member for Maryborough I would like to acknowledge in the public gallery students and staff from Woongoolba State School in the electorate of Albert, which is represented in the chamber by the honourable Margaret Keech. Pornography Ban Mr FOLEY: My question is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. In light of the federal government’s recent plan to ban X-rated pornography in the Northern Territory due to its contribution to the child sexual abuse crisis in that place, can the Attorney-General outline what steps will be taken by the Queensland government to eradicate pornography in both Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities? Mr SHINE: I thank the honourable gentleman for the question and I acknowledge his concern in relation to the question of child pornography. I refer him to the remarks of the honourable the police minister this morning when she went to some lengths in her answer to a question to describe the good work being done by the police and indeed the CMC in relation to Argos and other activities. 3142 Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 06 Sep 2007

This government established a dedicated minister, the Minister for Child Safety, to care for children in the state who need it. Likewise the minister for tourism and fair trading has a very important role to play in relation to censorship matters. Child pornography is abhorrent to all members of this House. The honourable member will recall that in 2005 the government improved the laws with respect to the downloading of information from the internet and child exploitation material generally in terms of making the maximum penalty for the possession, the distribution or the making of that type of material far more punitive—in fact, it is up to 10 years jail. As Attorney-General I am very conscious of the need to scrutinise what is going on in our courts. I recall recently, for example, representations being made to me by the member for Cairns, the honourable Minister for Child Safety, with respect to an incident there. As a result of that an appeal has been lodged in the court. Time expired.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Unemployment Rate Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (11.32 am), by leave: I am pleased to advise the House that today’s unemployment figures show Queensland unemployment at 3.5 per cent, unchanged from last week. This is again an extraordinary performance and I will be happy to provide the House with more details later today.

TRANSPORT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (11.33 am): I present a bill for an act to amend particular transport legislation. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Second Reading Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (11.33 am): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. This bill proposes changes to six pieces of legislation administered by my portfolio, bringing together a number of reforms to improve the transport sector. The most significant amendments in this bill are the adoption of national compliance and enforcement reforms for heavy vehicles and improvements to the taxi and limousine industries to enhance the range of services available throughout Queensland. The bill also makes some other minor changes to ensure delivery of the government’s transport infrastructure program and to improve or clarify legislation. I will outline each of the amendments in turn. The majority of amendments within the bill relate to the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, otherwise known as TORUM, with the most significant amendments involving the adoption of the national compliance and enforcement reforms. The national reforms are part of the third national heavy vehicle reform package developed by the National Transport Commission. These reforms are designed to achieve national uniformity and improve compliance with and enforcement of heavy vehicle operating requirements. It may interest the House to note that parts of these national reforms build on the ground-breaking approach Queensland adopted first in regards to chain of responsibility legislation. The national reforms were developed in consultation with representatives from the Commonwealth, state and territories’ road transport authorities, police, the road transport industry, the Transport Workers Union, occupational health and safety organisations and road user organisations. These reforms aim to improve road safety, traffic management and competitive equity while also helping to protect the environment and critical road infrastructure. This bill strengthens the powers of authorised officers to investigate and prosecute persons for breaches of heavy vehicle mass, dimension, loading and driver fatigue management requirements. Crash statistics in Queensland highlight the potential hazard heavy vehicles can pose when not managed properly. In 2006, heavy vehicles, including rigid trucks, articulated trucks, road trains and B-doubles were involved in 53 fatal crashes resulting in 54 fatalities. This represents 16 per cent of the Queensland road toll and is six fatalities or 12.5 per cent higher than 2005 and 13 per cent higher than the previous five-year average. Relative to other classes of vehicles, heavy vehicles are also significantly overrepresented in crashes 06 Sep 2007 Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 3143 causing fatalities. In 2006, for example, heavy vehicles accounted for 10.3 per cent of fatal crashes while comprising only 2.5 per cent of registered vehicles in Queensland. In the same year, articulated heavy vehicles such as road trains, B-doubles and B-triples had a fatal crash rate of 18 times that of cars. Recent increases in fatal crashes involving trucks can be attributed, in part, to an increase in the number of trucks travelling on Queensland roads. National research predicts that road and rail freight transport in Australia will almost double between 2000 and 2020, increasing from 268 to 523 billion tonne-kilometres. Road transport is expected to remain the dominant mode for freight movement during this period. In Queensland, strong economic and population growth will increase demand for goods and services, necessitating the effective and efficient movement of more freight. As a consequence, it is predicted that by 2020 one in four vehicles on metropolitan roads will be a commercial vehicle. In addition to these growth predictions, members will appreciate that should a truck collide with a car, the greater relative mass of the truck will result in higher impact forces and cause a lot more damage. Without tighter regulation of the road freight industry, this has the potential to impact on Queensland’s future road toll. In order to address the potential adverse impact that the increase in heavy vehicle traffic may have on road safety, the bill contains new general enforcement powers, an extension of existing chain of responsibility provisions, new court sanctions and mutual recognition provisions. The bill also contains new mass, dimension and loading requirements that are to be adopted consistently across the nation to protect critical transport infrastructure and the environment, while at the same time improving industry competitiveness. The bill incorporates a risk based categorisation of offences for mass, dimension and load restraint offences so that the level of penalty is commensurate with the risk to public safety, commercial advantage or infrastructure damage that may be caused by the offence. New nationally consistent cut-off points will be used to determine the risk of a breach of a mass requirement, replacing the risk categories that currently exist in Queensland. Under the current categories, operators are not charged with the most serious risk category until their load is 60 per cent greater than the legal limit. New evidence shows that this is potentially dangerous and, therefore, unacceptable so the new mass offence categories are: minor risk breaches, where a vehicle is overloaded by less than 5 per cent above the maximum mass allowed; substantial risk breaches, for circumstances where the load is between five per cent and 20 per cent above the maximum limit; and severe risk breaches, for circumstances where the load is 20 per cent or more above the maximum limit. The bill also applies the new risk categorisation to dimension and load restraint requirements. In addition to significant maximum fines, authorised officers will be allowed to give directions to the driver or operator of a vehicle which is subject to one or more severe, substantial or minor breaches of a mass, dimension or loading requirement. For example, where a truck carrying livestock is overweight, the authorised officer may direct the driver to the nearest spelling yard to remove some of the cattle before they can continue their journey. The bill also inserts a new provision that will make it an offence for a person to breach a requirement of a mass, dimension or load restraint concession. This provision recognises that approval to operate under a mass, dimension or load restraint concession is a privilege granted only when all reasonable steps are taken to protect the community. For example, a person who fails to comply with the requirements of an extra wide load permit poses a considerable risk to the community and should be subject to penalty for their breach. One of the main focuses of the bill is to strengthen and extend aspects relating to chain of responsibility. The aim of chain of responsibility is to ensure that all parties who influence on-road behaviour are held accountable for breaches of road transport laws. Under this concept, legal liability can reach beyond the driver and the road transport industry so that the real causes of noncompliance with road transport laws are targeted. Queensland leads the nation in chain of responsibility legislation, with the heart of the national compliance and enforcement chain of responsibility provisions being based on Queensland’s existing legislation. Chain of responsibility was first introduced in Queensland in 1996 and since then has seen the successful prosecution of 529 offenders on 3,049 charges worth a total of $1,602,200 in fines. The substantial drop in heavy vehicle crashes causing fatalities immediately after the new laws came into effect certainly support their impact as a general deterrent, not to mention several high-profile cases in recent years. This bill expands on existing provisions by creating new offence provisions for those within the chain of responsibility who provide false or misleading information. These provisions are over and above the current general offence in relation to providing false and misleading information to transport officers. For example, if a consignor at a port issues a declaration to a transport company that a container weighs 40 tonnes when it in fact weighs 60 tonnes, the consignor will have committed an offence. To ensure that innocent parties are not unfairly held accountable for another’s acts, the bill incorporates a reasonable steps defence. This defence applies to persons who can establish that they 3144 Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 06 Sep 2007 did not know and could not reasonably be expected to have known of a breach of a heavy vehicle law and that they either took all reasonable steps, or there were no steps that the person could have taken, to prevent the breach. To assist people in understanding their obligations in relation to mass, dimension and load restraint offences, the bill specifies that ‘an influencing person’ includes consignors, packers, loaders and operators as these are the key parties that have been identified as having well-defined responsibilities in relation to mass, dimension and load restraint offences. A major step forward in chain of responsibility prosecutions will be the introduction of new sanctions such as the commercial benefits penalty. The bill provides the court with the option to make a commercial benefits penalty order as a deterrent against the financial incentives to commit breaches of heavy vehicle laws in relation to high-value cargoes, particularly over long distances. So, for example, if a consignor convinces a transport operator to carry twice the legal load to save on transport costs, the prosecutor may apply to the court to make the consignor pay three times the potential profit for the load as a commercial benefit penalty. The other main focus of this bill is the expansion of general enforcement powers. The bill extends the current powers of transport inspectors and police officers to enter and search heavy vehicles and places in relation to heavy vehicles. While consent or a warrant is generally required to enter a place, the bill provides powers for authorised officers to enter and search heavy vehicles and specified premises relating to heavy vehicles without a warrant or consent. The purpose of these new provisions is to prevent the possibility of contamination, removal or destruction of crucial evidence. A number of safeguards have been included in order to protect the rights of individuals such as the inability to conduct searches on residential or unattended premises. The bill also extends the power in relation to moving heavy vehicles. These powers are essential to the enforcement of road laws by allowing immediate action to be taken to remedy breaches. The power to move vehicles, whether attended or not, will assist in minimising danger to public safety, the environment or road infrastructure and the obstruction of traffic. To do this, an authorised officer must first be satisfied that the vehicle is unattended after making reasonable inquiries in the local vicinity. Unattended vehicles will only be moved when an authorised officer reasonably believes that there is an imminent risk of serious harm to the public, the environment or road infrastructure or the vehicle is causing significant obstruction to traffic. Authorised officers will be able to open unlocked doors and enter the unattended vehicle but will not be able to use force. Other powers that have been included in the bill to assist in the enforcement of heavy vehicle offences include the power to issue an embargo notice to stop a person dealing with anything that may be seized as evidence; the power to require personal details from specified persons who may be able to assist investigations; and the power to require reasonable help to find and gain access to any documents in relation to a suspected heavy vehicle offence. The strengthening of enforcement powers is just one of the factors in Queensland’s comprehensive approach to minimising the hazard trucks can pose to the community. However, the first priority in managing compliance is to inform those involved in the heavy vehicle industry of the required safety standards. The second priority is to provide help to allow people to comply with their obligations without unnecessarily intruding or imposing costs on their activities and livelihood. The third priority is to check how people in the industry are managing their compliance through regular inspections or through alternative compliance schemes like the National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme’s maintenance management module. This module allows accredited road freight operators to implement a mass management system rather than take their vehicles off the road for annual inspections. I seek leave to have the remainder of my speech incorporated in Hansard. The Speaker’s office has seen it. Leave granted. While these measures of informing, helping and checking are successful in ensuring that the majority of those involved in road transport abide by Queensland’s legislation, evidence suggests that some operators within the road freight industry, or those influencing the industry, are resistant to these measures. Investigations are revealing that some businesses actively try to avoid prosecution under existing chain of responsibility legislation in a number of ways, including: • using company hierarchies to focus attention on drivers rather than managers or other parties who may be systematically influencing drivers to break the law, • concealing crucial evidence in a number of diverse locations, or • simply destroying evidence not required to be kept under transport law. Some companies even use state boundaries to avoid prosecution, particularly by registering their businesses in other states so that our investigators have greater difficulty in obtaining evidence. To help investigate offences by businesses registered or operating in other states, the Bill inserts a new provision to allow authorised officers in one state to exercise enforcement powers in another state, provided that the other state has corresponding legislative enforcement provisions. The exercise of enforcement powers across state boundaries is also subject to ministerial agreement. 06 Sep 2007 Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 3145

Despite having knowledge of appropriate road behaviour, a minority of operators are motivated by potential commercial benefit to consistently and repeatedly commit breaches of transport laws. Often these operators have a good knowledge of legislation and defences available to them and use this knowledge to avoid enforcement. The increasing hazard these road freight and associated industry operators pose to community safety must be addressed for all road users. These amendments are a significant step in addressing this concern. This Bill also contains an additional two important road safety measures to be incorporated into the TORUM Act. These two measures are not limited to just heavy vehicles but will apply to all road users. The first of those measures will extend the period in which proceedings can be commenced against drivers who commit “hit-and- run” offences. In 2006, nine people were killed by a hit-and-run driver and more than 130 people were hospitalised. Identifying drivers in hit-and-run crashes can be very difficult, and there can, on occasion, be a delay in identifying the offender after the actual offence is committed. Currently, under the TORUM Act, proceedings against a hit-and-run driver must be commenced within one year after the offence was committed or within 6 months after the offence comes to the complainant’s knowledge, but within 2 years after the offence was committed. The amendment will ensure that proceedings against a hit-and-run driver, where the incident involved injury to or death of a person, can be commenced within three years after the offence was committed. I’m sure none of us in this place have any sympathy for those who commit hit-and-run offences. The second road safety measure in this Bill relates to drug driving and the penalties for repeat offenders. Earlier this year, the Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Act 2007 was passed to introduce an offence for drivers who have certain drugs present in their systems. If convicted of that offence, a person will be disqualified from holding or obtaining a Queensland drivers licence. The amendments in this Bill amend the unproclaimed provisions to ensure that those who commit repeat drug driving offences will be required to serve their disqualification periods cumulatively and not concurrently. This reflects recent amendments that will impose cumulative disqualification periods on repeat drink drivers. This approach recognises the seriousness of repeat drink and drug driving offences and also recognises the importance of strengthening the deterrent effect of the relevant penalties for those offences. Where a person is disqualified by a court two or more times for driving with drugs or excessive alcohol in their systems, we believe that person should be required to serve out the total of those disqualification periods. So, by progressing this Bill we will ensure, firstly, that identified hit-and-run drivers can be brought to justice and, secondly, that repeat drug drivers will serve the full term of their court-imposed licence disqualifications. A further amendment to the TORUM Act relates to the approval of modified vehicles. The Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Vehicle Standards and Safety) Regulation 1999 provides that a vehicle modification must not be approved unless it complies with a code of practice listed in that regulation. Those codes of practice, and any amendments to them, must be approved by the chief executive. Departmental records have revealed that approvals during the period July 1990 to July 2006 do not adequately cover all the amendments that have been made to the codes. As such, amendments in the Bill will validate the codes, any amendments to the codes and any actions taken in reliance of those codes. This validation is important to ensure confidence in the integrity of the modification approval scheme and proper enforcement of the requirements of that scheme. The contents of these codes and the requirements imposed by them are well known to those in the industry. Because of this, it is not expected that these amendments will affect the way in which modifications are approved. The Bill also makes a number of amendments to definitions and procedural matters in the TORUM Act. It will require a person wanting to challenge an image from a speed or red light camera or wanting to challenge the accuracy or operation of a radar or laser-based speed detection device, to not only give notice of that challenge as they must currently do but also provide the grounds of challenge. This will identify for the prosecution the issues in dispute and will ensure that the appropriate expert witnesses are on hand to assist the court. The Bill will amend the definition of “bicycle” to specifically exclude vehicles fitted with an internal combustion engine. This will outlaw the practice of people mounting whipper-snipper motors on ordinary push bikes to help them get around. That type of modification is dangerous, those engines are noisy and bicycles modified in that way should not be allowed on our roads. The Bill makes some minor amendments to the definitions of “motor vehicle”, “wheeled recreational device” and “wheeled toy” and inserts new definitions of “scooter” and “motorised scooter”. These amendments are in line with recent reforms to the Australian Road Rules which will allow low-powered electric foot scooters to be used on roads and road-related areas. To fully adopt these reforms in Queensland will require further regulation amendments to specify the conditions under which these scooters can be used on Queensland roads. For example, they will only be permitted on local roads with a speed limit of 50 km/h or less and their riders will need to wear an approved bicycle helmet. The Bill amends the immediate drivers licence suspension provisions for high risk drink drivers to reflect recent changes to section 328A of the Criminal Code. Those changes to section 328A, which is the offence of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, removed the distinction in penalty based on the person’s level of intoxication. The immediate suspension provisions in the TORUM Act apply to a person charged under section 328A and the amendments in this Bill will remove the reference to a person’s level of intoxication. The Bill amends the definition of “transport Act” to give transport inspectors the power to seize a thing if the inspector reasonably believes the thing is evidence of an offence against the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994. It will also provide for the forfeiture to the State of a seized thing in specified circumstances. These new provisions will assist transport inspectors in ensuring compliance with the compulsory third party provisions of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994. As members would understand, there can be serious consequences for people driving vehicles on our roads that do not have the appropriate CTP insurance coverage. Without CTP insurance a driver may be held personally liable for personal injury claims arising out of a crash. They are also committing an offence under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 and may be liable to a fine under that Act. Taxi and limousine industry reform The Bill also implements reforms for the taxi and limousine industries through amendments to the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994. The amendments introduce changes primarily aimed at enhancing the range of services available and the safety and security of taxi patrons and taxi drivers throughout Queensland. It enables the industries to develop their operations to cater for dynamic changes to meet new market trends. Specifically the legislative changes relate to the introduction of peak demand taxis, special purpose limousines and recording of limousine bookings. These changes to both industries are a significant milestone aimed at achieving a customer responsive service accommodating the needs of a changing marketplace. The community can rest assured the government is providing regulation to provide safe, quality, efficient taxi and limousine services tailored to their needs. 3146 Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 06 Sep 2007

In recognition of the ever growing Queensland population, Queensland Transport has released an additional 262 taxi licences since January 2004, representing industry growth of over 12%. Additionally, Queensland Transport has developed and released regionally based limousine licences to the areas of Far North Queensland, North Queensland and Capricornia, providing a cost- effective mechanism for limousine operators to conduct their business. Since the launch on 1 July 2007, 14 licences have been issued with a further 17 applications currently under assessment. As well as the additional taxi licences, QT introduced NightLink FlatFare taxi services in Brisbane in December 2005. Using maxi taxis and peoplemovers, these services enable groups of passengers travelling in the same direction to share the ride and the cost. The FlatFare service from four ranks in Brisbane has been extremely popular and has performed 18,643 trips and carried 111,392 passengers to date. As a result of this success, the service has expanded recently to Townsville. Queensland Transport is now working with other taxi companies and will soon have a service operating at Mooloolaba on the Sunshine Coast and in Cavill Avenue in Surfers Paradise. The taxi and limousine industries are an integral part of the passenger transport system in Queensland. They provide a fast and efficient service for business people, as well meeting the travelling needs of tourists, which is also important. This is essential if Queensland is to maintain its reputation as a preferred tourist destination. Greater flexibility in the taxi and limousine industries is now more important than ever to address particular needs of the community. The model for the future presented by these reform initiatives is an evolution of the existing regulatory structure in which taxi companies are required to meet performance standards under service contracts. These reforms will allow the taxi companies more flexibility to manage the performance of their fleets. One of the big challenges the taxi industry has faced recently has been their ability to meet increased demand on Friday and Saturday nights and when large special events occur. This has resulted in unacceptably long waiting times and queues with somewhat disgruntled and unhappy taxi users. In some cases, it can also lead to aggression and violence. The legislative reforms will allow extra taxis to be provided at peak times to alleviate the inherent pressure and concerns. Peak demand taxis will be managed through the taxi companies. To determine how many additional peak demand taxis permits will be needed, taxi companies will be required to develop and submit to Queensland Transport an annual Peak Demand Management Plan, specifically identifying how they intend to address wait times in peak demand periods. Current figures show that even with the improvements through Queensland Transport’s secure ranks, members of the public are waiting up to 30 minutes to get a taxi on a Friday or Saturday night. The peak demand taxis are another measure in the suite of changes that QT has introduced to improve waiting times. This peak demand taxi proposal will support the benefits gained from this Government’s secure taxi rank initiative. These have been operating for some time now with the presence of marshals and security guards managing responsible order and safety at ranks. Since their introduction secure taxi ranks continue to be strongly supported by taxi patrons and the taxi industry. The provision of sufficient taxis at peak times goes a long way to reduce the risk of incidents and increases the feeling of safety for patrons and taxi drivers. In essence it reinforces with patrons that catching a taxi home after a late night out is a good, time effective and reliable public transport option. This has direct benefits for the taxi industry as a whole by increasing public confidence in taxi services and thereby increasing patronage. This Government is committed to providing quality transport services to the people of Queensland. Performance standards for taxi services and other public transport services such as urban buses are specified in commercial service contracts. Through a contract, an operator agrees to meet minimum service levels and other specified key performance indicators. Non-compliance with these levels of service is of great concern. To ensure operators meet their required service levels, this Bill proposes the penalty for non-compliance with key performance indicators be increased from 4 penalty units ($300) to 40 penalty units ($3000). This amendment will provide a greater incentive for operators to meet minimum performance levels resulting in improved services. This Bill also establishes a greater choice of vehicles that can be used to provide chauffeur services to weddings and school formals. Presently, privately owned, novelty vehicles are being used for these types of occasions with owners charging fees to provide chauffeur driven services. This practice is illegal and these services should only be provided by a limousine with a limousine licence. This illegal behaviour provides no safeguard for the travelling public. It does not provide an assurance of a standard for the safety of the vehicle, appropriate insurance or a minimum level of competence and appropriateness of the driver. To address this situation, these reforms will introduce special purpose limousine licences specifically for weddings, social events such as a school formals, dances and balls, graduation ceremonies, and tourist services. Vehicles operated on a special purpose limousine licence must be at least 30 years old and will be required to display a distinctive number plate. The licence fees will reflect their limited use but public safety will be better safe-guarded by bringing in regular inspections and other requirements for operators. Another reform to the limousine industry is a new requirement for limousine operators to maintain a passenger booking system. This new requirement will prevent unscrupulous limousine drivers cruising the streets for business or standing illegally for hire. Regular complaints about this unfair and illegal activity are received from the taxi industry which has much higher entry and operating costs. This behaviour also disadvantages limousine operators and drivers who only provide services with a prior booking, as per the legal requirement. Through the use of a passenger booking system, an operator and driver will need to demonstrate that a booking exists before a journey is undertaken. This amendment will also provide a means for compliance officers to quickly identify if limousines are operating illegally. Swift identification of illegal operation will significantly reduce the department’s costs to ensure compliance with legislation. The reforms proposed in this Bill will provide better taxi services and increased safety during peak patronage periods, improved choice for limousine customers, as well as increased taxi and limousine accountability for service delivery. Changes to tolling provisions The Bill makes three small amendments to the current tolling regime, consisting of two amendments to the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 and one to the Transport Planning and Coordination Act 1994. These amendments are intended to support the successful development by the State of the Airport Link Project, a Public Private Partnership Project. The first amendment to the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 clarifies that a party who holds a lease of a toll road from the State can sublease parts of the toll road. This may be necessary for operational reasons, but the conditions of the sublease will always be governed by the conditions of the head lease to the toll operator, thus ensuring the State’s interests are secured. 06 Sep 2007 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 3147

The second amendment to the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 inserts an express power for the Minister to provide for an end date or a method to calculate an end date for when the power to toll by the operator ceases. This is in line with the State’s tolling policy, which provides for ownership of toll roads to revert to the State at the end of the tolling period. The third amendment which relates to tolling is to the Transport Planning and Coordination Act 1994. The Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 currently provides for a number of instances where land can be disposed of to third parties for certain purposes, such as a lease to a toll road operator to operate a toll road or a lease to a railway manager (such as Queensland Rail Ltd) for use as part of a rail transport corridor. This amendment removes any doubt that may have existed that land can be acquired (including by resumption) for transport or incidental purposes, with the intention of disposing of it to third parties in accordance with provisions in the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994. The amendment also clarifies that the chief executive can dispose of land for franchised road or toll road purposes to any person (for example, a public private partnership proponent) for franchised road or toll road purposes. Busway land acquisition The Bill also includes an amendment to the Transport Planning and Coordination Act 1994 concerning the acquisition of land for busways. The amendment provides that in relation to acquisitions of land for the purposes of a busway occurring after 13 October 2000 that regardless of whether the acquisition was by the chief executive of the Department of Main Roads or Queensland Transport, it is taken to have been an acquisition made by the chief executive of Main Roads. A provision in the Transport Planning and Coordination Act 1994 currently provides that all acquisitions must be done by the chief executive of the Department of Main Roads. This provision was only ever intended to be an interim measure, but was not removed from the legislation. Subsequently, certain acquisitions were done by the chief executive of Queensland Transport. The amendment in this Bill is necessary to validate those acquisitions done on behalf of the chief executive of Queensland Transport and also removes the interim measure which required acquisitions to be done by Main Roads. Importantly, the amendments do not create any injustice or hardship for any party affected by the land acquisitions and any rights in relation to compensation are not affected. The amendments will ensure that the Government delivers on its commitment to have the Inner Northern Busway completed by mid 2008 and avoid any possible delays resulting from uncertainty regarding the acquisitions. This important project is a vital spoke in the busway network that will one day span the city. Changes for consistency with MARPOL The Bill also amends the Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995 which ensures that Queensland’s marine environment is protected by legislation. This legislation is consistent with international practices as set out in the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973—commonly known as MARPOL. MARPOL sets out guidelines and rules for the management of noxious liquid substances which include pollutants such as chlorine. MARPOL is constantly under review to ensure protection of the seas from such pollutants. In line with recent changes to MARPOL, the Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995 is being amended to reflect the new categories of noxious liquid substances. This amendment is technical in nature but makes sure that our state legislation is aligned to meet Queensland’s commitment to the implementation of MARPOL throughout Australia. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Nicholls, adjourned.

URBAN LAND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 5 September (see p. 3077). Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—Lib) (11.44 am): When debate on the Urban Land Development Authority Bill was adjourned yesterday afternoon at 5.30, I was talking about proposed section 106 of the bill. Before I proceed with that, I wish to firstly acknowledge the unemployment figure that was provided by the Deputy Premier today. We have an unemployment rate of 3.5 per cent, and what a great figure that is. I also wish to acknowledge the great work that has been done by the Howard government in setting up the environment so that the state of Queensland can take full advantage of the economic boom times that have been provided by the federal coalition government over the last 10 years. I also want to reflect on something else the Deputy Premier said during question time when she talked about who was going to be the friend of the working man in Queensland. She talked about wages and how much people are being paid. I remind the Deputy Premier that under the last 10 years of the federal coalition the average take-home pay for working people in Australia went up by 20 per cent, while in the prior 15 years the average wage under the Labor government went backwards. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): I remind the member for Clayfield that we are speaking on the Urban Land Development Authority Bill. Mr NICHOLLS: Indeed, and I do take your direction there, Mr Deputy Speaker. We were talking about housing affordability and nothing could be more important to housing affordability than having a job and a higher income to pay for it. So I think it is always important to remember that, when it comes to wages in Australia, the best friend of the working man is the Howard-led Liberal-National coalition, which increased workers’ real take-home wages by 20 per cent, not decreased them like the Hawke- Keating failed government did in the prior 10 or 15 years. 3148 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 06 Sep 2007

I read out proposed section 106 yesterday. It sets out the qualifications for those people who will be appointed to the Urban Land Development Authority. It sets out a number of qualifications in six areas, including architecture, urban design, social policy, local government and others. But proposed section 106(1)(b) has, as I called it, the Labor mates’ appointment clause, because it says ‘has other knowledge and experience the Governor in Council considers appropriate’—that is, the Governor in Council with the advice of the Executive Council. So this would allow for the appointment of union hacks, failed members and other flotsam and jetsam of the Labor Party if the minister thinks they need a job. That is why it is essential that the process for the appointment of members to the authority allows for at least some independence from executive government. We all remember what happened when Steve Bracks of the Tattersalls advisory fame attempted to appoint the former chief of staff of Labor Lord Mayor Jim Soorley to the board of the Victorian Urban Land Authority and the furore that caused. The Treasurer is under an obligation to give an ironclad guarantee that Labor mates will not be appointed to the ULDA. If she cannot or will not give that guarantee, then the government is again condemned for its inability to act in the best interests of Queenslanders, as opposed to acting in the best interests of itself and its union mates. There are many other issues in relation to the legislation. In proposed section 3(2)(e), there is a reference to ‘low to moderate income households’, but there is no definition of ‘low to moderate income households’. The question to be asked is: is the definition to be left to the government, or is it in fact the ULDA which would determine who is in a low to moderate income household? Is there some other industry standard that would be used? In the development principle set out in proposed section 3(3), the definition of ‘range of housing options’ effectively means anything goes, so in developing a range of housing options the authority is not constrained and nor is the minister. There is no reference to existing needs or desires or wants and nor is there any reference to existing developed plans for neighbourhoods and areas. Developing neighbourhood plans is not something that can be done lightly or easily, as recent experience in the Brisbane City Council neighbourhood planning process shows. They take a long time, they involve a lot of community involvement and unless the community comes along there will be a great sense of unhappiness and unease with any plans that are imposed from above. In my electorate where there is one site—the Hamilton Northshore—the initial proposal by the Port of Brisbane Authority included a 30-storey tower which was completely and utterly unacceptable. Until that matter was raised and some political pressure was brought to bear and the community spoke, that program was still proceeding ahead. Traffic on Kingsford Smith Drive some two years after the proposal was initially put forward is still not resolved. In my area in Albion, there was another proposal for a TOD which provided a mix of housing styles and I strongly supported that. Unfortunately, it was actively opposed by the local Labor candidate at the by-election that was held last year. It was actively and is still actively opposed in the planning process. There is, in fact, quite a number of good reasons why support for legislation like this—proper legislation with amendments, with changes—should go through, because it overcomes that particular issue. But it needs a lot of community consultation—consultation such as that put in place by the BCC in its neighbourhood planning areas. In West End there was a lot of opposition to the proposals to increase density, in the Deputy Premier’s own electorate. She well knows the problems encountered as we tried to deal with the reuse of brownfields sites in that part of the world. Time does not permit me to go through other issues which will be raised by other speakers. There are issues with the question of the urban development area, which in the terms of proposed section 7(1) is not defined. It can be declared at the whim of the government. Any part of the state may be declared as an urban development area. Proposed section 9(2) allows a regulation to make a new land use plan for an urban development area following the expiry of an interim land use plan. There is no statement as to how long that new land use plan is valid for. There are other issues in relation to IPA and other things, but in general I support the bill with amendments. Time expired. Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (11.50 am): Under the watch of the Howard federal government, housing stress has risen to unprecedented levels across Australia. Through the establishment of the Urban Land Development Authority proposed in this bill and the release of the Queensland state government’s Housing Affordability Strategy, the Deputy Premier has taken decisive and comprehensive action to ease housing stress in Queensland. These strategies and this bill have my full support. Despite disturbing predictions that the majority of Australians born between 1978 and 1998, the so-called Y generation, will never have mortgages or own their own homes, despite the fact there is a growing rent generation of young people who already believe property ownership is permanently beyond their reach, the Howard government has not placed a high priority on housing policy or the supply of public housing. 06 Sep 2007 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 3149

The Howard government has never developed a comprehensive national housing policy. In contrast the Rudd Labor opposition has a comprehensive housing strategy. I say ‘bring on the federal election’. I am getting pretty excited about the prospect of once again having a fair and decent Australia. The federal government has relied on a policy of providing private rent assistance to low-income earners while severely cutting capital funds to the states and territories through the Commonwealth- State Housing Agreement. This free market approach has helped to line the pockets of property owners and has done very little at all to help people with housing stress. It might be a nice try by Mr Howard and Mr Costello to pass the buck, but they cannot cover up their failure to tackle the housing problem. Their appalling unwillingness to tackle this problem is very evident. Many working families are now economically excluded from homeownership. A typical first homeowner now needs to service a $2,500 per month mortgage. Household debt is higher than ever under John Howard and people should never forget that when they vote over the next weeks. Of 260,000 families who earn less than $30,000 per annum—and these are families John Howard has no idea about, and most of these people rent housing—47 per cent are in housing stress. In Queensland over 36,000 people are waiting on the public housing list, and this is largely due to the lack of capital funds coming from the Commonwealth government. The state’s median house price has more than doubled from about $160,000 in 2001 to $325,000 as at December last year. The rate of mortgagee failure nationally has increased significantly in the last 12 months. In June 2006 the number of households falling behind on their home loan repayments was up 150 per cent from five years ago. The overall proportion of loans in arrears is still low—just one per cent—but that equates to at least 40,000 households nationally in trouble. If Mr Howard does not get it with all these facts available as evidence, he is certainly blinded by the reality of how many people are doing it tough in Australia. Hopefully, they will give him that message loud and clear over coming weeks. This bill establishes the Urban Land Development Authority to, among many things, facilitate the availability of land for urban purposes and make available as quickly as possible more affordable housing options for low- to moderate-income households. It is a very determined and genuine effort to tackle the problem. The authority will have the power to acquire and consolidate land in urban development areas suitable for new housing and ensure it is moved quickly to the market. The authority will undertake planning, management and delivery of strategic urban redevelopment sites. The authority will have carriage to improve the land, and plan and control development within the designated areas to deliver government policy in these areas, including, where appropriate, requiring developers to include public and affordable housing on these designated sites. Selected communities will be master planned, with housing affordability as a core goal. I accept that many housing industry stakeholders will have concerns about the increasing powers assumed by the state government through this bill. I urge all stakeholders, however, to put aside vested interests and get on board to make housing more affordable. They all have children. We all have children. We have a responsibility to make sure that children into the future can afford to own their own home, can afford to pay rents, can afford to have a decent roof over their heads. Ensuring that housing remains affordable and accessible to all Australians, particularly the young and the vulnerable, is a responsibility the federal government must share in, not buck-pass to the states. In Queensland we are not sitting around waiting for the federal government to deal with housing issues. In this state budget this year we have injected a record $719 million boost for housing including a five-year funding injection from the Queensland growth fund for social housing, assisting more than 250,000 Queenslanders with a housing solution to better meet their needs. We are supporting private partnerships such as the Brisbane Housing Co. and the Gold Coast Housing Co. The Brisbane Housing Co., for example, has a proven track record in delivering many hundreds of affordable housing units at a development cost of around $160,000 to $180,000 per unit. I commend the minister for housing, Robert Schwarten, for his support of these kinds of housing initiatives. We need much more of it. This bill gives the state government more grunt to tackle what is becoming a major housing affordability crisis across Australia. It is a national problem. It deserves and needs urgent national action. I urge all members of this House to support our state initiatives contained in this bill. Mr HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (11.56 am): Housing affordability is the key issue of concern for Queenslanders, especially in the inner northern suburbs of Brisbane. All three levels of government need to make a policy contribution. Unfortunately, especially over the last 10 years, the federal government has damaged housing affordability in a wide number of respects. I think the examples referred to by my colleague the member for Algester stand as a good account for some of those issues. But more widely in relation to the delivery of a proper tax environment for the development of affordable housing and the funding support mechanisms for those who need social housing, the Howard government has not only dropped the ball but actively ignored the ball and decided to play a game involving a shuttlecock. 3150 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 06 Sep 2007

When we turn to local government we find a sector which has been greatly challenged for many years by a system now hijacked by political nimbyism and competition for competent planners and so forth with a booming development sector. While I feel sorry for local government—I know many genuine people who are attempting in that sector to address housing affordability—I am sure that reforms both to the structure and legislative environment of local government being currently undertaken by the Beattie Labor government and considered further will be of great assistance. The first order of business, however, for this House is the state government’s policy response and the need to act and respond to the challenges of housing affordability. That is why the announcement by the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure in the form of the Queensland Housing Affordability Strategy is such a welcome start by the Beattie government. It therefore gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the Urban Land Development Authority Bill, which is an important element of the Queensland Housing Affordability Strategy. At the outset of this second reading debate I was perturbed to hear the Leader of the Liberal Party suggesting that the legislation did not deal with affordable housing. However, I suggest that he examine clause 3(2)(e), where the main purpose of the bill includes the facilitation of ‘the provision of an ongoing availability of affordable housing options for low to moderate income households’. Indeed, the member for Robina joined his current leader in suggesting that the legislation was being passed in haste. He suggested that we need to wait and consult with the property development industry. He appeared to do this at the same time as sneering at some in the industry who have the good foresight and sense to be supportive of the government—a fine trick, but I wish the member for Robina well in getting away with it. The member for Robina specifically mentioned the need to consult with the Property Council of Australia. As many members will appreciate, I know that organisation reasonably well. In those not entirely misty days before my election to this parliament I was the manager of policy and research for the Queensland Division of the Property Council of Australia. The Property Council has a fine tradition of standing up for and advocating strongly in the interests of the development industry and it generally does so in a far more intelligent manner than the sprawl for sprawl sake crowd. The Property Council’s membership is drawn from industry players who are about building communities not just turning a buck. That is why I think the member for Robina and others might find it instructive to look at the sort of views that have been expressed by the Property Council over a long period of time on matters which relate to the legislation before us. Let me refer to the Property Council’s submission to the Queensland government’s draft South East Queensland Regional Plan in 2004. In this document the Property Council was responding to proposals about transit oriented development, otherwise know as TODs. I acknowledge that the member for Clayfield made reference to those in his contribution earlier. I understand his views about a TOD that we share in Albion. The governance principles and concerns that were raised in the Property Council’s submission are very similar to those being raised in relation to this legislation and with the proposed Urban Land Development Authority. On page 9 of the Property Council submission to the draft South East Queensland Regional Plan it says— The Property Council proposed that an authority be established and specifically empowered to assemble land, upgrade infrastructure and approve developments. Further, the submission outlines the characteristic of its proposed model— Established under a new legislative instrument which provides maximum flexibility and power to achieve outcomes. Work with councils, property owners and the community to produce a planning framework for an area—in particular instances the authority may also be the consent authority for development. Be well resourced and draw staff including the most talented people from the public and private sectors. Assume responsibility for existing State Government land holdings within the ... area to maximise development opportunities. A logical and consistent Property Council, which I know it generally is, will see the creation of the Urban Land Development Authority for the purposes of housing affordability as the required extension of South East Queensland Regional Plan. As its submission said in 2004— The Property Council believes that the importance of successful and influential infill development to an achievable Regional Plan makes a strong governance model mandatory. Further, with the possibility of government contributing land to subsidise the overall cost, an authority with legislative powers is one mechanism that would enable affordable housing options to be included. I know this submission fairly well and the debates and discussions within the Property Council’s membership because I was the author of it. Frankly, it sounds a lot like the proposed authority before us. So I can suggest to the member for Robina who is wanting us to consult further with the Property Council of Australia that it has a fairly good idea what this is all about and that it understands and appreciates that this is the logical extension to addressing the issues of housing affordability as they flow out of the South East Queensland Regional Plan. While talking about the draft South East Queensland Regional Plan let me return to the Leader of the Liberal Party’s contribution. Especially let me return to his furphy about a new secret tax. Such a claim is very ill-informed and, not to put too finer point on it, wrong. 06 Sep 2007 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 3151

Infrastructure charging was introduced as part of the regional plan when it was confirmed by the government—and indeed this parliament—in 2005. So, two years and two months later the Leader of the Liberal Party is just catching up. Infrastructure charging is not so new and it is not so secret. The application of this infrastructure charging regime in these areas will be welcomed by the industry and will be welcomed by the community. Currently, local government are applying these charges in ways that make the hair stand up on the backs of anyone with an interest in sound development. The lack of transparency, the lack of certainty are addressed by the provisions of the legislation. I can assure the member for Moggill that these provisions are welcome. They are not a scary new tax. Speaking of horror movie plots, I must make some reference to the amendments proposed by the Leader of the Liberal Party. I refer specifically to his proposal to allow the Local Government Association of Queensland to directly appoint two representatives to the authority. This reminds me of a very unlikely gothic novel. Appointing LGAQ representatives to a body designed to push through and beyond the barriers and hurdles in front of the provision of affordable housing sounds rather like a proposal to appoint Dracula and Renfield to the board of the blood bank. This sounds like a recipe for continued barriers and excuses, not the results which I know the Deputy Premier is focused on. Consultation with communities has been raised as a key issue and concern by many speakers during the second reading debate. I wish to concur with this. The Urban Land Development Authority represents an outstanding vehicle for better consulted master planned outcomes with a focus on affordable housing. I think that it is important that the authority build on the work of those who have gone before them. This includes the local authorities and in Brisbane includes the work of bodies such as the Urban Renewal Task Force originally the result of national government policy in relation to our urban environment. Some people may remember dimly and darkly that we once had a national government that was committed to our urban environments. Under the Hawke and Keating governments it was clearly Australian government policy to have policy for cities in terms of housing affordability. I therefore urge the Office of Urban Management and the incoming authority to be mindful of the work of the late Trevor Reddacliffe and his Urban Renewal Task Force. I also have some professional experience in the area of genuine community consultation in relation to good urban design. For instance, I worked closely with the Wynnum Urban Renewal Coalition on their inquiry by design and charrette process which, independent of a paralysed local government, engaged extensively with the community and created a vision for efficient and effective renewal of a tired and challenged urban landscape. I commend a web site to all members which documents that process. I suggest members look at this site—www.wynnumcentraltod.com.au. Further, I note that the process won an award from the Planning Institute of Australia as an example of how to do good, engaged urban consultation. I welcome this government’s model which underlines the importance of the authority to keenly engage the community in its vision and in the task of creating genuinely affordable and livable urban communities. Further, I note the comments from the members for Gregory and Maroochydore advocating urban and housing renewal in western and regional Queensland. I agree with them and encourage them to support the legislation to provide for a more activist agent for such change. I noted the member for Gregory’s reservations about what he calls high density housing areas. Well designed urban environments with integrated physical and social infrastructure are vital to all community successes. I can inform the member and his colleagues that this is the case no matter what the density. My electorate is home to Queensland’s first public housing estate. I am talking here about traditional quarter acre blocks and three-bedroom family homes. Those estates were originally designed under Labor governments in the 1940s with park land and public transport at their core and catering for working families. Unfortunately, policies towards public housing under subsequent conservative governments created problems which we are still living with today. These are challenges which can be overcome but they are challenges that were not a function of density. They were not a function of the built form. They occurred despite some idyllic measure of suburbia that they represent as some perfect form of urban form, or should I say urban sprawl. But public housing is indeed a key part of the delivery of good affordable housing. It is important that in the processes the Urban Land Development Authority undertake it continues to look for engaging, contributing and ensuring that public housing is at the core of delivery of affordable housing in our state. It is the most cost-effective way, and I say that as no fan of socialised answers or socialised economies. That is not my general standpoint on these things. I think that many members of the House would be aware of my views on these things. But effectively public housing is the most cost- effective way of delivering affordable housing in our community. On that point, there are a range of key influences on the issues addressing housing affordability and urban design in our community. I would commend and acknowledge the contribution of the honourable and very learned member for Hervey Bay in his insightful contribution to this debate, especially in relation to household and property size. Mr McNamara: It was a great speech. 3152 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 06 Sep 2007

Mr HINCHLIFFE: It was. But in conclusion, diversity in built form is the key here—diversity in terms of property use, diversity in terms of tenure, diversity in terms of ownership and tenancy. That is what this measure in relation to housing affordability and specifically the role of the Urban Land Development Authority can provide to Queenslanders. On behalf of the wide variety of Queenslanders who need that full gamut of housing options, I commend the bill to the House. Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (12.10 pm): It is with pleasure that I rise to support the legislation before the House today, the Urban Land Development Authority Bill. I want to talk briefly on a number of the issues contained in the bill. I first want to address the issue of affordable housing, and it appears that the cornerstone of the legislation is to allow for affordable housing to be built throughout Queensland. As members of the House are aware, many issues come under the gambit of affordable housing. One is the definition of affordable housing, and it really depends what sort of wage bracket a person is in or if they are employed or whether they are in a situation where they can almost afford a mortgage. When my wife and I first established a home it was a very modest home. Indeed, most of the house was not even completed. Over the years we have added ceilings and walls and those sorts of things and concreted underneath. My wife keeps telling me that I still have not finished it, and that is probably half true. The reality is that many years ago people had to have between 30 per cent and 40 per cent deposit to put down for a home loan and they had to prove that they could actually pay it off. Of course, the cost of building a home in those days was certainly a lot cheaper because materials such as timber and fibro were reasonably cheap. Quite frankly, there were people who could not afford to build their own home in those days. So it is an ongoing situation. We sometimes gloss over the affordability of housing, but it has been an issue for the last 100 years. It is certainly difficult now. A house nowadays is at least a three-bedroom home with a twin carport, established gardens, ensuites, theatre rooms et cetera. Of course the cost of those sorts of houses with dishwashers and all the rest of it is high and of course it will be hard to afford those sorts of homes. I have had some experience in terms of developing land. The situation in Queensland under our system of town plans is that if a person has a block of land which becomes zoned as part of the town plan it is like winning the casket. The value of that land triples or increases by even more than that by the fact that it has been zoned in the town plan. A developer then buys that land if it is not being developed by the owner and it goes on from there. There is the cost of getting engineers and surveyors to develop the land. It probably takes between 12 months—if you are lucky—and two years after a person buys the land before they can get council approval. Then of course as the land is developed they have to put up-front funds away for the delivery of services such as electricity and telephone connections and the drainage system that has to be built into the land, the environmental issues and it goes on and on. When it goes on to the market the stamp duty is instantly applicable to that land. With land values nowadays, a person would be lucky to buy a reasonable house block in Mackay under $200,000. We have to pay stamp duty—even though the GST came in and as part of that agreement stamp duty was meant to be taken away from the state government but is still there—which adds to the cost of the land. Then of course the 10 per cent GST, which the state government gets, goes on to the price as well. After all of those costs are taken into consideration, $200,000 is about the cost of developing the land. That creates a situation with affordable housing where there are some really very high costs up-front. Also, as was detailed by the member for Gladstone this morning, the cost of getting employees to do the work is growing. People are currently paying something like $80 an hour for a plumber in Mackay, and I think that is fairly average across Queensland. Chippies cost something like $60 an hour plus on-costs. This great talk about affordable housing really is a bit of a furphy. It will be very difficult under the current situation in terms of the constraints we have of being able to develop affordable housing. This legislation may open up more land for development, and I have always had the view that we are not utilising the best part of our landscape for development. We continue to see good flat areas of land around our cities being developed for housing while not too far away the landscape is elevated. It may be a little more difficult to build on that elevated land, but that land is certainly not useable for agriculture or other pursuits. I do not believe that we are building in the areas where houses should be built. If this legislation will enable infrastructure to be put in place in order to allow the land around towns throughout Queensland that is eminently suitable for the building of homes that is not necessarily good agricultural land, I am totally in support of it. As I said, the costs will be a bit higher, but at the end of the day the worst thing we can do to a piece of ground environmentally and fundamentally is to put 20 or 30 loads of concrete on top of it. It never goes back to being useable land, and as a farmer that really upsets me quite considerably. The legislation details the Mackay Showgrounds as one of the sites for affordable housing. The Mackay Showgrounds is an iconic site almost in the middle of Mackay. No matter what happens, that land is extremely valuable and I find it very difficult to believe that we are going to build affordable housing in the middle of Mackay on an iconic site that really is of very high value. If it is going to be tendered out to developers, they will pay extreme amounts of money for that ground. I find it hard to believe that they will build low-cost housing on that site. Indeed, if the government goes ahead and 06 Sep 2007 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 3153 develops that land itself and ownership is transferred to individuals, the resale value of those units will almost automatically go up to the standard that is current in Mackay. I want to see the plans of what the government has in mind for the showgrounds in Mackay, because the people of Mackay have a real interest in terms of what is happening to the showgrounds. Off the top of my head, the showground site has been dedicated as a showgrounds site for almost 100 years, and it may even be a little over 100 years. There are fairly substantial infrastructure assets on the site. They may not be the flashest in the world but they certainly serve a purpose. The mining expo that utilises the grounds every two to three years is very significant. If the showgrounds are going to be utilised as an affordable housing site, there has to be another site allocated very close to Mackay in order to carry out exactly what happens on the showgrounds now. Currently, the showgrounds site is in operation pretty much on a weekly basis. There is something happening there every week. If we are going to maintain the showgrounds in the style that we have always experienced, a lot of infrastructure will have to go into building a greenfield site. I know my colleague the member for Toowoomba South has had a lot to do with showgrounds over the years and would be well aware of the cost of shifting those showgrounds onto a greenfield site. It is unbelievable that the president of the showgrounds is still not aware of the role that the state government is taking in terms of the showgrounds. I would hope that by now he would at least be briefed on the situation. I have always advocated that the area of land across the road bordered by the Pioneer River, the Bruce Highway, Canelands Park and the Ron Camm Bridge could be utilised for something like a showgrounds. It certainly will need filling, which could be done using sand pumped from the Pioneer River. It is basically on the same level as the shopping centre Caneland Central and is in the middle of Mackay. Quite frankly, right now the site is a dump. It is overgrown and not utilised to its full extent. I think there is a real opportunity for the government and certainly the council to look at making some real effort in trying to come to grips with the replacement for the Mackay Showgrounds if this all goes ahead. The development of any low-cost infrastructure is going to be very difficult. Low-cost housing and affordable housing are two different definitions. Low-cost housing is housing into which there are low inputs. I find it difficult to believe that that is going to be achievable in Queensland. Affordable housing is being able to build housing that people can afford. When you take into account the cost of bank charges, the cost of loans, the cost of 22 per cent interest rates when Labor gets in as it was before, it is going to be interesting. Ms Nolan: How about 23 per cent when John Howard was first Premier? Mr MALONE: People can get a home loan at seven per cent now if they try really hard. I am wondering what it will be in a couple of years time if Labor gets in. Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr MALONE: I was paying 22 per cent when I bought a farm. So I do know all about it. I know members on the other side of the House do not like the facts, but that is the way it was. Hopefully this legislation will create some breakthroughs in the development of some new land around our cities. As I said, the constraint in terms of town planning was certainly an issue in getting good housing sites on the market. That could help a bit but I do not believe it will be to the extent that we will be able to say that we have extremely good, affordable housing, particularly when we consider that the number of houses that the government has under its control really has not grown to any great extent over the past 10 years. If public housing is the way we are going to go, we certainly need a change of attitude. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (12.23 pm): There are some important aspects of this bill. Amongst other things, it is aimed at systems of planning, housing affordability and low-cost housing. As our shadow minister has said, we are supporting this bill, although we have a number of reservations about some issues, and they will be addressed in the amendments. Some of those things concerned the way that councils could be pushed out of the process and become only a secondary part of the process as things would be handed on to councils at a certain stage. There were some concerns expressed by the Urban Development Institute of Australia about the make-up of the ULDA and those who would be appointed to it as well as concerns about appeals, reviews and so forth. The first concern is the fact that this bill was introduced to the parliament on the 22nd of last month and here we are on the 6th of this month debating it. It is hardly enough time for a bill that is as complex as this one to be analysed carefully by the many organisations across the spectrum of housing and development, those who want to use houses, people in councils—and most of our councils are in turmoil at the moment with the forced amalgamations—and the professional bodies. It is not enough time for them to look at the bill and determine whether it will work, if it has any chinks in it, what needs to be fixed and so forth. There has been an obscene rush on this particular piece of legislation. It is extremely complex legislation and it deserves more time than that. Had we been debating it at the next session of parliament there would have been an additional four weeks for organisations to look at it and get back to both sides of the House. 3154 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 06 Sep 2007

On the matter of supply and planning, I think there are some very important issues. We have seen housing in Queensland and the way our cities develop dramatically change in a very short period. I grew up in the southern suburbs of Brisbane amongst housing commission camps and people struggling to build houses on single incomes. There were housing commission camps at Moorooka, Rocklea and Victoria Park near the hospital and there were pensioner camps in places like the now suburb of Clifton Hill which was full of little tin humpies all over the hill, in the bush and in the grass. That was not very long ago. The next step from there in affordable housing was to develop new housing commission suburbs—the little block houses that went up at Coopers Plains and Inala. People were desperate to get a house at the time but many of those places were isolated and that was a problem. At least Coopers Plains was on a railway line, but Inala was quite isolated and was virtually a suburb out in the bush. Subsequently, there have been some difficulties for those people in terms of that isolation. Planning is important as to how we develop our towns and cities and particularly how we move with the changing demographic. Part of the reason for the high cost of housing today is this rapidly changing demographic. The number of people under a roof in Australia is now something like 1.4. Not too long ago it would have been four or five people under a roof. However, with changing lifestyles, people marrying later in life, smaller families and divorced people happy to live on their own there is a whole range of reasons why there is suddenly a need for more units of accommodation, be they houses or units. With a degree of affluence has come those people who have been fortunate enough to have a second house as a holiday house along some of the coastal strips. All of that has put pressure on the amount of land that is available, the number of tradesmen who are available and the cost of housing. Australia has very low unemployment. We are a country whose economy is so strong and so powerful but we do not have the population to work within that. In my own area there are simply no unemployed workers because there is virtually zero unemployment. They have had to bring out Brazilians to work the meatworks and Chinese to work as welders and boilermakers and other people to drive cattle trucks and so forth because we just do not have the population commensurate with the size and strength of the economy. That is what we are seeing in relation to housing affordability. It is not so much a shortage of tradesmen, it is just a shortage of people. Those who are fortunate to have a trade go off to work in the mines or work getting great returns for their labour in major construction. The central issue of housing affordability that I want to bring into this debate is: will this work? Is it going to address the availability of land? Is it going to address quick decision making on land? One of the costs of development is holding costs. If people buy land and have to hold it for many years, those holding costs are built into the eventual sale price of that block of land. The young married couple who need to buy a block of land to try to establish their house are the ones who will, in the end, be paying the cost. The other costs, of course, are stamp duty costs, government charges, local government charges and infrastructure charges. They have been rising astronomically. The more and more demands that governments—including state government and local government—place on developers for this, that and the other thing and the more planning and amenities that people demand, that just simply drives up the cost. Those issues have to be watched very carefully. People have great expectations today. They like to buy a house that has the landscaping done, the curtains on the windows and all of those sorts of things. They tend to get into large debt in order to get those things. My colleague mentioned that banks used to insist on a 40 per cent deposit and the ability to repay a loan. As it has become easier to get finance, people have been able to have higher aspirations and they have been able to stretch themselves financially a bit more. All of that has led to this heating up of the housing market. We would all like to have a nice home, but sometimes we have to start in a fairly humble way and hope that after a number of years or when our kids have grown up we might be able to extend the house or move on to something better. They are the sorts of things that need to be considered. I know that some years ago the member for Rockhampton, in his portfolio, sold houses at Harlaxton. Harlaxton is a Housing Commission area and those houses were very modest. They were sold for $70,000. The minister then tried to buy houses for somewhere between $240,000 and $360,000. That meant that for every four houses that were sold that would have housed four people, the minister’s department got one house in return. At the time I thought that was bad economics. Those modest houses, with the addition of a nice little carport and a few other things, could have been made into quite good homes. Those ones that were bought are now rented out for about $180 or $200 a week. You need to strike a good balance between how many roofs you can provide for people with the standard of the home that you are going to provide. Somewhere in there you have to try to provide as much accommodation as you possibly can. I think that is one of the most important things to start with. I believe that in Toowoomba we need affordable housing, particularly for those elderly people who are not in a financial position to be able to have their own house and need to have Housing Commission units. Some of the units that have been built in recent years are very nice. Importantly, those units have to be relatively close to the CBD so that people can get on to a bus or other transport, or walk to the nearest shopping centre. I think those things are very important for people, particularly elderly people. 06 Sep 2007 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 3155

A common issue throughout many regional centres, including Toowoomba, is the need to provide housing for elderly people whose older children have an intellectual disability. These people have raised their children, who are now in there 50s or 60s. These people are old parents. They are approaching the end of their natural life and they worry about where their children are going to live. I think probably one of the most critical and urgent needs of housing in this state is the need to provide safe, secure and pleasant accommodation for the intellectually disabled who are moving on in years and whose parents are extremely worried about them. I ask the minister to pass on those comments to Rob Schwarten. I do know that the federal government has now provided an amount of money—from memory, I think it is in the order of about $11 million over five years—specifically for this type of accommodation. I would like to see a system put in place where the provision of that accommodation is worked out very quickly. I know that the system is going to work through Centrelink and that there will be a screening process. I would like to see that happen pretty quick smart so that these elderly parents can see their disabled children safely placed in the right and appropriate type of accommodation. This bill covers some development areas in Brisbane and one in Mackay. I think it is important for the government to work with councils on issues, such as airspace that the government owns over railway lines and so forth. We have seen developments such as the construction of those shopping centres over the Toowong Railway Station and at Roma Street Railway Station, which were quite innovative in their time. Those developments make good use of available airspace, and sometimes land space, but particularly space that is close to transport and space that is close to the CBD. I strongly believe that the ambience, or the feel of a place, is very important when undertaking planning. I think it is important to have adequate green space and facilities that people can walk to. In Australia we have tended to develop urban sprawl where there are the three-bedroom brick veneer homes with the Colorbond fence in between. Everybody gets in their cars to drive to the big shopping centres or to the hotels where they have to park outside. Centuries ago in England people lived near little hotels that they could walk to. Those places had a community feel. People could go to those places and have a meal, play darts—or whatever they do. Whereas here people get in a car and drive to a place that has 300 car parks and someone has to drive home. I think we have trended away from the true suburbia or village feel that we should have in our suburbs. Some people who live in the suburbs get quite lonely as they are either on their own or they are elderly and are not able to walk to a place where they know people or feel that they belong. I want to raise the issue regarding the Mareeba District Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association. I see the local government minister is in the chamber. I know that the association has written to him about this matter as well as to the Minister for Natural Resources and Water. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Darling): Order! Is this to do with the bill before the House? Mr HORAN: Yes, it is. Absolutely. It is to do with the review of the Far North Queensland Regional Plan, which I see is mentioned in all the matters to do with this bill. The minister is nodding his head. The Mareeba District Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association is concerned about being involved in some of the discussions and consultations about the use of land in far-north Queensland. The basis of the association’s letter is that, although they accept and want to maintain good prime agricultural land, there are occasions where that land is unable to obtain water through a sale or the transfer of water rights or the unavailability of water rights. That changes the usage of that land and the value of that land. The association raised some other issues in that letter, but mainly it stated that it wanted to be involved in the planning process, because the association covers an area of Mareeba, Dimbulah and other areas, and it has quite a bit to contribute in some cases. There may be land on the edge of the town or land that is of low-grade value in terms of its ability to produce compared to other better soil types. I think if the minister can take note of that letter then certainly we will assist those people in feeling that they belong to the process. The development industry sometimes gets pilloried but if you look around south-east Queensland you can see some absolute quality developments. I know in my own area of Toowoomba we have had developers, and my predecessor in this House has been the major developer there for many years. As I have said before, he has always provided quality subdivisions. I have always spoken highly of the way in which he provided value for money for young families. He held blocks of land for young couples when they got engaged until they had the money to be able to buy them. I remember not very long ago he said that a block of land over $50,000 was hard to sell. Just a couple of years back he was saying he was trying to keep his prices under $75,000 for a block of land. We all know now what the price of land is in south-east Queensland, in Toowoomba and elsewhere. It does make it difficult. If people want to make a start in life, the first thing they have to do is buy a block of land, and if it is $150,000 or more that is a big ask in itself. This situation is contributing to demographic change. Couples have to wait longer before they have a family in order to get on top of the initial costs that they face. We are also seeing a move to blocks of land further away from the CBD. We are seeing in areas surrounding Toowoomba farm land, 3156 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 06 Sep 2007 or land that is in undulating, ridge type country, being cut up into blocks of land and people are able to buy that. They are getting one and a quarter acres but getting it at a price around $135,000, so it is not as dear as it is in town. These are very important issues of planning. I do not have a problem with good strategic planning to try to get it right. I do not have a problem with trying to anticipate some of the demographic changes. I do not know who had the foresight to put Queen’s Park in the middle of Toowoomba but it was one of the greatest things that ever happened for our city. We need to have that sort of foresight in future development that occurs. We do not particularly want to have little pocket handkerchief bits of ground here and there amongst subdivisions; it is better to have a nice big piece where there is a botanical garden, a sports field and a place where people can have a barbecue. It really adds dimension to a suburb. Who had the foresight to put in place Yeronga Park? What a great place that is for that part of the city. That is what is needed in all towns, be it Brisbane or other towns throughout Queensland. Planning has to be about amenity, practicality and affordability but it also has to be about ensuring that wherever people live in the future they are within walking distance of conveniences. It should be an environment where people can enjoy each other’s company and where those who are disadvantaged can feel that they are part of that particular village. As I said at the outset, we are supporting this bill, but we have a number of concerns. Our shadow minister will be addressing those concerns by way of amendments. If those amendments can be considered, despite the fact that this bill has been rushed through in about a week and a half, then that could give some real strength and potential to this legislation and housing affordability in the future. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (12.42 pm): It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House and speak on the Urban Land Authority Development Bill. The bill will ensure that homeownership remains affordable for families within our growth corridors, something that is really important to the people of Springwood. It has specific strategies for housing affordability. It will see a better sequencing of release of land while not allowing developers to sidestep environmental laws, something else that the people of Springwood find very important. The establishment of the Urban Land Authority is the centrepiece of the bill and, indeed, the state Labor government’s Housing Affordability Strategy. It will be provided with powers to acquire and consolidate land suitable for new housing and ensure that it is moved quickly to the market. Five initial sites have been identified for the authority to undertake planning, management and delivery of strategic urban redevelopment sites. They are at Fitzgibbon, Northshore Hamilton, Bowen Hills, Woolloongabba and Mackay Showgrounds. The authority will have the power to require developers to include public and affordable housing on these designated sites. I am sure that everyone will be looking at these sites with great interest and I am also sure that the authority will provide the leadership that we require to have better urban planning and affordable housing outcomes. It is expected that these sites will deliver housing for more than 20,000 Queenslanders. The authority has been developed after consultation with the industry and targets the issues they rate as barriers and problems in the development approvals process. The authority will ensure that planning and development applications are decided as quickly as possible. This will minimise the holding costs incurred by developers and that eventually is passed on to homebuyers. The new authority will have the power to deliver a range of housing styles to meet the changing needs of the community and can attach conditions of sale to require a component of affordable housing. But what I am extremely pleased about is that it recognises the need for a range of housing options. In the past people have usually purchased first homes that were very small, did not have the extra bathrooms or the family rooms. Often if you were building, landscaping, pathways and fences were all an added cost that many of us could not afford. This allowed for people to enter the housing market. They added their extensions, landscaping, pathways or other features as years went by and as they could afford to do so. Some would sell and move into bigger houses as they had families and they were also financially able to do so. To me, having housing options is another way of providing opportunities for people to do just that. A few months ago I heard one of the saddest comments ever made to me. It was from a young man in his early twenties in his first year of work. He is straight from uni in a professional job. He said to me that he and his friends all felt that the dream of owning their own home had gone. At his age I was purchasing a block of land and designing my first home that I was going to build. Never did I feel that I would never own my own home. That thought never crossed my mind. The thought that I would struggle, the thought that I would have to work hard to achieve this dream often did cross my mind, but I always knew I could do it. More importantly, I knew I could do it as a single woman. To hear those words was quite distressing to me. But what are other young people saying? Some of them are saying to me that they are very happy to have purchased apartments, as this too can be the stepping stone for them to get their house and land. That was very similar to what some of my friends did when they first got married. They purchased what was called home units. Coorparoo was the suburb that most of my friends went to in those days to purchase those home units. They were very happy not to have the burden of mowing a 06 Sep 2007 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 3157 yard or maintaining a house, just as young people have said that to me today about apartments. They were happy not to have a huge mansion and they wanted accessible public transport. I think this reflects exactly what young people of today want as well. They have said to me that they want accessible public transport, retail and recreational areas close by, they want sporting facilities close by and they want open spaces such as parks or town squares in retail centres. After all, they are living in an apartment block. They are living in a small living area and they want to be able to access that outdoor living and entertainment easily. The second group that I have spoken to are usually young married couples who, while apartments might be okay, were actually looking for a small allotment with a modest home on it. Once again, they brought up that they wanted public transport, services, retail centres and sporting and recreational areas close by. They could have a small allotment with a normal size house on it with not as much yard maintenance but could still have nice parks and things close by so that they could go out and enjoy outdoor living as well. To me that is a happy compromise. They said they were happy to enter the market this way; then they would move on to something else as they moved through the different stages of their lives. I find it incredible that we hear people stand in this House and say that they do not want high- density development. They do not understand that there is a need for a variety of housing. I have heard comments in relation to people not wanting the humble home that we purchased years ago. The new houses that I have seen in some of the new housing estates are actually the humble home of today’s standard. They might not be the humble home that we think of, but on today’s standards I think they can be quite a humble home. I have never lived on acreage, yet I understand why people would want to. I understand that we need larger allotments for people to choose to live on, but we also need housing choices for everyone else. The people who best understand that seem to be the young and the seniors. Seniors understand the housing choices because they too want some choices as they go through their senior years. They understand the other choices because they want those choices for their grandchildren. Yes, there are still some who want the 32-perch block with the Hills Hoist in the backyard. Where did we get that years ago? ‘In the outer suburbs, in the outskirts’, I hear. The outskirts years ago was Springwood. The outskirts for my mother was Mount Gravatt—somewhere that would not be considered the outskirts today. So where are the young people going for this? They are going to the outskirts of today, just as we did. And just as we did, they want sensible planning and practical design; they need it to be suitable and they need housing in various forms for all stages of their lives. For those people who say we should not let Brisbane, Logan or the Gold Coast grow, where do they want their kids to live? Do they want their kids to be close by? Do they want us to say, ‘Sorry, kids, we’ve closed it all off. There’s no more housing for you’? Where exactly do they want their kids to go? By offering a range of housing options, we are not only meeting the differing needs in our community but also offering opportunities for people to enter the housing market. The choice is very clear. We have to plan, we have to plan for sustainability and we have to ensure we keep the dream of homeownership alive. It is often said that the empty vessel makes the most noise. The member for Moggill was making a lot of noise earlier in this debate, and I am not surprised. I looked at the Liberal Party’s web site under its policies and, to my surprise, guess what I found? There was no housing policy. I have a list here of what I found, but there was no Liberal Party housing policy. Can I say that I did find out that the coalition would assist in tackling Ross River fever. I thought that might have been for those people that the coalition cannot assist to find a house. Perhaps those people are living in tents and the coalition will look after the mosquitoes for them. I also found on the web site ‘services in the Chatsworth electorate’. I went and saw the Labor member for Chatsworth and we had a bit of a look at this. We decided not to go too far into it because we found that the web site was a bit out of date as it still had Lawrence Springborg as the leader. So I found no solutions there, nothing from that side. I then wondered what the National Party had, and it was a little better. It had its state platform up there on the web site and it did include housing, but whether that will be put into a policy remains to be seen. Let us think back to when the National Party was in power. Let us turn back the clocks and think about that. If the Nationals were in power today, there would be no brake on urban development, no brake at all. Remember that it was the National Party that strongly promoted broadscale tree clearing policies that saw hundreds and thousands of hectares of remnant vegetation destroyed year after year statewide, yet National Party members stand in this place and talk about sustainability, sensible balanced planning and green space—that is something they have never, ever demonstrated. In other words, the opposition has no affordable housing policy, it has no alternatives. It is an empty vessel. Mrs Sullivan: They have a policy. They rip money out of it. Ms STONE: That is right, they do not put money into housing. It was not that long ago that Queenslanders were led to believe that under a coalition federal government interest rates would be kept low. Well, they have been lied to. I have lost count of the number of rate rises we have had. Maybe someone can inform me. 3158 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 06 Sep 2007

Mr Wallace: Nine. Ms STONE: Thank you. What I have not lost sight of is knowing that for many households that extra $50 per month—or whatever the figure is, but I know it is high—represents a significant chunk out of their budgets. Mrs Reilly: Especially because their mortgages are so high now. Ms STONE: Their mortgages and their fuel bills. Mrs Reilly: And their food bills. Ms STONE: Yes, their grocery bills. We can keep adding to that on and on; it just does not stop. So taking that big chunk out of their budget can make it even more difficult to get into homeownership. That is even more reason to have those choices for them as those stepping stones. Today I will be joining the Springwood State High School leaders—Nick Batt, Joel Goode, Lauren Hughes and Samara Berger. They are our future generation leaders. I am going to have a great conversation with those young people over lunch. They are going to do a tour of Parliament House because one of these days one of them just might be sitting in here. One of the topics I will be asking them about is housing. I will be getting their views, because that is how we find out exactly what people want. It is not all about what we thought was the dream. It is not all about what our mothers and fathers thought was the dream. What do these young people want for housing for the future? They are also going to see a demonstration by the Travelsafe Committee on the report that was given this morning. I am looking forward to taking them through and having a great discussion with them. Getting back to that distressing comment by that young man about never thinking he would own a home even though he is a professional and he has the capabilities to do that, I asked him about some things that he thought of. One of them was land release; he came up with that straight away and started to talk to me about that. He also talked to me about the option of small allotments or having villages with all those services in them, such as recreation facilities, retail facilities, medical services and other services that are needed. So I gave this plan to him and told him to have a look at it and it is exactly what he wanted. This is what he is looking for. Mrs Reilly: He’s a sensible young man. Ms STONE: He is a very sensible young man. He lives in my area; that is sensible. He is very sensible. He pointed out to me that that is exactly what they were looking for. They were looking for those options. The Deputy Premier has shown really strong leadership by bringing this bill into the House. The developers in my area often tell me how hard it is to get things done and to go through councils and to experience the barriers they have to deal with to get affordable housing and get housing sites going. I know that many of them have spoken to me about the charges and the park charges. They say that after they do these developments they wonder where the parks are because they certainly put in the money for them. This bill has certainly provided strong leadership for not only future homeowners but also developers. Affordable housing is certainly the issue of the day. I know at seniors clubs it is the No. 1 issue they speak to me about, because once again they are worried about WorkChoices and they are worried about their kids not having a job to buy a home. That is their major concern in life. They are also worried about the environment. They are worried that their kids will not have the nice bushland and green spaces that we enjoyed and that they enjoyed around their suburbs. They too want to see sensible planning outcomes for affordable housing for their grandchildren. I think those seniors have it right. Like I said before, they have it right because they know we do need an option and we do need choices for housing for people. Owning your own home in Australia has always been the great dream, but it has always been the great dream that many of us achieve because we go out there and we work hard to achieve it. But there are some people who do not have the skills and are not fortunate enough to have the education that many in this place have. They are certainly behind the eight ball when it comes to getting housing. With WorkChoices and so forth now, they certainly do not have the job security that we did. That is one of the barriers for young people getting a house. They do not have the security in the workplace that we had. Many of them are put on temporary contracts or put on as casuals. They come to me all the time and tell me that they cannot get bank loans because of that fact. Unfortunately today, that is the market. The banks have to recognise that these people do need to be looked after in the housing market because that is the labour market of today. I am hoping that will change very shortly when we get the Rudd Labor government in power. A government member: Kevin07. Ms STONE: That is correct. Once again I want to thank the Deputy Premier for providing strong leadership by bringing this bill to the House. She has ensured that the dream of owning your own home stays alive for everybody in our state. It will stay within the reach of ordinary Queenslanders. With those words, I thank her and I commend the bill to the House. Sitting suspended from 12.58 pm to 2.30 pm. 06 Sep 2007 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 3159

Mr GRAY (Gaven—ALP) (2.30 pm): I rise to support the Urban Land Development Authority Bill before the House. Home affordability is one of Australia’s major social ills, with housing affordability being at its lowest level since 1996. The dream of homeownership is one which Australians hold dear. This country of ours has the highest rate of homeownership of any Western nation. It is something about which we as Australians are particularly proud. Parents hold strong the desire to see their children prosper and own their own home. This dream is now turning into a nightmare for many young Australians. Home affordability under good federal Labor governance rose to an indexed peak in 1996-97 of 176 on the Commonwealth Bank HIA home affordability index. Under Howard this has fallen to 107.8 in 2006-07. I would rather have been in a housing market in the Hawke-Keating years than under Howard. The young homebuyer today is doing it tough. As the Residential Development Council states in its recent publication Beyond Reach: a workforce housing crisis in Australia July 2007— No matter the way you look at the situation, the cost of housing is beyond the reach of many working family units across the nation. For an increasing number of young families, the prospect of a single income earner and stay at home parent is now beyond reach if homeownership is an objective. The report goes on to detail the reasons for this low level of home affordability. Among them is the scarcity of land and the high level of local government infrastructure charges. Of course, the other is the supply of land as identified in the Residential Development Council’s recent report Beyond Reach, as I have mentioned. This government recognises the root causes of home affordability and, unlike the current conservative federal government, has acted in a decisive way to address those issues. In December 2006 the Queensland government convened the housing and land supply forum with key state and local government and industry representatives. The forum led the government to develop the Queensland Housing Affordability Strategy. This was a timely response. The strategy, as we know, aimed to improve the operation of the land supply pipeline from raw land to completed development; amend the Integrated Planning Act 1997 to improve the efficiency of the integrated development assessment system until the IPA integrated development assessment system reform agenda is implemented; enhance the level of involvement of the Queensland government in the land supply pipeline; improve the monitoring of the land supply; and improve the operation, transparency and accountability of infrastructure funding and charges for new development. That is an area of grave concern in the Gold Coast city. The Urban Land Development Authority, following the enactment of its underpinning legislation, will plan, carry out, promote, coordinate and control the development of land in certain designated areas declared as urban development areas. One important power the authority will have is the acquisition and consolidation of land in urban development areas suitable for new housing and to ensure that it is moved quickly to the market while also delivering government policy. This is a necessary provision in that it will bring urban land to the market sooner. The sole intent is increasing the land supply. In the Gold Coast City Council area in which I live I see inordinate delays in development approvals for much-needed land stock. In the electorate of Gaven a developer of a large parcel of land which will provide up to 2,000 homes, town houses and units in a transit oriented development zone has been waiting four years for final approval—four years. That is but one example of many in the Gold Coast city where infrastructure charges are out of control. Decent developers are walking away from the Gold Coast city because doing business there takes too long, costs too much and is not economic. Mr Wendt: They are coming to Ipswich. Mr GRAY: I will take that interjection, one notable person being Craig Gore, who has gone to Ipswich. I have an example of a $2 million infrastructure charge for a used car workshop which will cost $400,000 to build and a $44,000 infrastructure charge on the building of a duplex. Both of these—and they are only a few examples—are totally and completely unjustified. I am extremely pleased to see transparency of infrastructure charges included in this act. It is therefore vital that the authority will enable the government to be more efficient and proactive in providing land for urban development for major infill and redevelopment sites and may also have the opportunity to operate in greenfield areas where there are land supply pressures. I have seen similar urban renewal authorities in action in Perth, where the authority acquires at commercial rates infill sites desirable for redevelopment and redevelops the area to then be sold back into the market with great success. While the proposed authority initially will not undertake all of these proposed development steps, it is certainly a step in the right direction. I am equally pleased to see that the authority will access and decide development applications for the urban development area and may impose conditions on developers which may include, where appropriate, requiring developers to include provision for affordable housing. I actively work trying to convince developers in the electorate of Gaven to provide a percentage of affordable housing in developments in this area. But given the approval delays and high infrastructure charges in the Gold Coast City Council area they mount a strong case to minimise such housing in order to gain a reasonable rate of return on their sizeable investments. 3160 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 06 Sep 2007

It is also pleasing to see in the bill changes to the Integrated Planning Act which will enable the planning minister with expanded powers to decide conflicts and direct local government, state agencies or applicants to ensure that developments which will contribute significantly to regional land supply are not delayed through the development assessment system and can be processed as quickly as possible to enable land to be bought to the market in a timely manner. Finally, a series of proposed amendments have been made to the IPA to ensure fair infrastructure charges by enabling the planning minister to seek timely independent advice from the Queensland Competition Authority on local government infrastructure charging schedules prior to their approval. I spoke earlier in my speech about the stupidity that exists in the Gold Coast City Council in respect of infrastructure charges which are a disincentive to developers to bring on much-needed housing lots in an area which is amongst the fastest growing in the country. Housing density in the Gold Coast city currently means two or more families living in the same house because of the high cost of housing and rental properties. I commend the bill to the House. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (2.39 pm): I rise to participate in the debate on the Urban Land Development Authority Bill and say at the outset that I will be supporting this bill. In relation to the amendments proposed by the opposition, I will be waiting to hear from the opposition when we proceed to the consideration in detail stage. In making my comments on this bill I reflect on my time in local government in the Maroochy Shire Council. Since I have been a member of state parliament my electorate has seen continual development on the Sunshine Coast and in the Maroochy shire. There is no doubt in my mind that up until now we have seen developers very clearly controlling the agenda—not only controlling the agenda as to when land comes on to the market but also controlling the agenda in relation to court actions and putting significant pressure not just on local community groups who may not support such applications but on local councils. By and large, I believe that it has been the development industry which has controlled the agenda of the release of land and the timing of the release of land, which has had a lot to do with the supply and demand in the market and directly affects the value of land available in the market for people to acquire and build their house on. I believe this legislation is a forward step to try to respond to the pressures we have. It is great to see that we are actually having a whole-of-government response in a planning scheme. Too often in the past we have had one department making a submission, another department making a submission and another department making a submission. What we have here from the government is an attempt to respond to some of the problems and the growing pressures we have in south-east Queensland, certainly the growing pressures that I see on the Sunshine Coast. I am very pleased to see that the state government is going to take the lead to try to ensure that there is affordable housing. I reflect on an approach I made some time ago to the various councils in my area on the Sunshine Coast when I raised with them the issue of affordable housing. With the recent debate on the issues of amalgamation, there has been a lot of publicity about the Noosa council. When I approached the three Sunshine Coast councils—I attended their regional meeting—I was stunned with the amount of work that the Noosa council had already undertaken on this very issue of affordable housing in the Noosa shire. I am very proud to say that I was very impressed with the work that the Noosa council has been doing for some time in trying to respond to the affordable housing crisis we have on the Sunshine Coast. I was very disappointed with the response I received from the Maroochy Shire Council at that time. Suffice to say I will not take that matter any further. I am very pleased to see an attempt to bring the infrastructure charges more into line because on the Sunshine Coast one council has one scale, another council has another scale and then somewhere else has yet another scale. When I speak to the developers they say, ‘Peter, it is unbelievable the amount of time and effort we have to put into trying to understand all the different rules and regulations of all the various councils in the area.’ Unfortunately some developers say, ‘We’re simply going to restrict our activities to one area because at least that is one area where we can keep a handle on what is happening.’ I say to the minister and the government that this legislation is a forward step. I think it is showing leadership and is a genuine attempt to respond to the great pressures that we are certainly seeing in south-east Queensland. I am very pleased to see that we are going to have leadership with a whole-of- government response to try to make sure that urban areas are planned for in appropriate locations, to try to make sure that when urban areas develop there is a mix of housing options and to try to make sure that urban areas not just have playing fields but also are in close proximity to public transport, as that has certainly been one of the challenges that I have seen in my time as a representative of the people. I also spoke earlier this week in relation to the iconic legislation and I tabled quite a few letters from my constituents who want the government to listen to their calls for the protection of their areas. Using this debate as another opportunity, I would like to table a copy of the 38 submissions that I received in favour of the government proceeding with iconic legislation that includes the area of the Blackall Range in my electorate. I note that three of those submissions have reservations recorded. It 06 Sep 2007 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 3161 will be interesting for members to look at the authors of those three reservations. The reason I table those submissions is that sometimes the leadership that we hope will come from local government does not happen. In relation to the issues involving the Montville-Flaxton area, the controversial Links development, many people were very disappointed with the lack of leadership from their councillor. It seems that again, in this instance, there is some overwhelming lobbying from the mums and dads and residents of the Blackall Range area to say, ‘We want to go straight to the state government to ensure that our area is protected because of concerns for the future.’ I table for the benefit of the minister, the Treasurer and Deputy Premier a copy of those submissions. Tabled paper: Bundle of documents relating to Montville/Flaxton/Mapleton area and proposed iconic legislation. I understand that when parliament resumes in early October there will be many more letters which are being prepared for me to present to this parliament. I would also like to reflect on some of the public housing projects which this government and previous Beattie governments have undertaken in my electorate. I am very proud of the public housing which has been constructed and has been fully occupied for some time in Arundel Avenue, which is a busy street in Nambour. I would like to put on the record that when those housing units were constructed and designed Robert Schwarten went out of his way to ensure that they were the latest style to showcase what we can do and do well. A number of other public housing facilities have been built in my electorate. I am very, very proud of them, and I know that the residents in those public housing units are very proud of them as well. I am also very pleased that the government has been prepared to go into the marketplace and purchase strategic parcels of land in Yandina and in some other areas in my electorate because of the growth and the fact that there is a great demand for a mix of housing options for people on the Sunshine Coast, especially in the hinterland. The railway corridor is a major attraction because often people who need to avail themselves of public housing also have a need for public transport. I am very pleased that the government has taken that on board, bearing in mind that the government is about to commence an investigation to identify a new railway corridor which in the long term will be wide enough to accommodate four railway lines. That is a significant plan when departmental staff are saying, ‘We are going to ensure there will be a corridor wide enough to cater for the future demands of the Sunshine Coast.’ I look forward to the debate progressing to the consideration in detail stage to consider the amendments proposed by the opposition. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (2.47 pm): As the shadow minister outlined, we will be supporting the Urban Land Development Authority Bill with certain amendments. In January 2007 the Property Council of Australia produced a document called Boulevard of broken dreams. It details the issues of affordable housing across Australia. It is significant in that it does identify a number of matters. It highlights that between 2001 and 2031 this nation will need 4.6 million new dwellings. The limited land supply is induced by restrictive land release policies of state and local governments and many other factors including the fact that government related taxes, fees, levies and charges and compliance costs are also adding to the cost of new housing. So the whole of the nation is in fact facing a critical shortage of what I call affordable housing, and it is right and proper that the state government—and in fact all governments across Australia—address this ever-growing problem. In my opinion, the one thing that we do not want to see is the cost of housing getting beyond the reach of the young people of this nation because it is with them that the future of the nation rests. But nowhere is that occurring more so than across the whole of the Sunshine Coast, including Caloundra. The population across the coast is set to increase from 291,000 to 479,000 by 2026, an average population growth of 2.5 per cent per annum, and dwelling approvals in the last year increased by 26.9 per cent. In fact, when one looks at the statistics for Caloundra dwellings and the approvals for such dwellings, they were up 15 per cent in the March quarter and in the December quarter of last year there were 1,295 house sales, with the median property price rising by 2.2 per cent in that quarter whereas the prices for vacant urban land and units and town houses fell by 7.9 per cent and 0.9 per cent respectively. But a real concern is the cost of renting a house now on the Sunshine Coast. In Caloundra the rent for a one-bedroom house has increased by 46.7 per cent and the rent for a one- bedroom unit in Noosa has increased by 41.9 per cent. So we are seeing a gradual and significant increase in the costs of even renting a home, which therefore means that trying to save money to acquire a block and build or buy an existing home is becoming harder and harder. The Sunshine Coast Daily on 21 July 2007 ran an article titled ‘Landlocked’ and projected that 35,000 people will move to the coast within four years but pointed out that we only have 1,000 blocks of land left with which to build those required dwellings in order to accommodate those people. In addition, the Sunshine Coast Daily on 5 September 2007 listed the 20 mortgage stressed locations across Queensland, and nine of those 20 locations fell in the Sunshine Coast. More and more people are finding it harder to acquire and maintain a home for their future development. Nowhere is this more important than when dealing with the youth of this nation, particularly on the Sunshine Coast. If we believe—and we have to believe—that we need to provide for the youth to grow, to move, to have 3162 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 06 Sep 2007 families and to generate income into a locality, then they must have a base from which to do so. The great Australian dream has for many years been to own one’s own home, and that will always—at least for the foreseeable future—be the case. Therefore, if we are going to attract young people to an area, we need to ensure that they can acquire that residential base so that they do have their families, that the kids go to school there, that they earn income in the area and that they develop the whole location into the future. We also know that it is younger married couples with young children that spend a greater proportion of funds than retired people—not because retired people do not wish to do so but they have normally got their home, their children have gone and they have a set fixed income whereas younger families need to meet ongoing costs on a day-to-day basis. When we start looking at how we develop the areas as suggested within the bill before the House, there are also needs that have to be met by this government by way of infrastructure. If we are going to select certain areas to be developed for urban housing and for other purposes, we also need to incorporate planning for health, hospitals and ancillary services, public transport services, roads, the Ambulance Service, doctor numbers, nurse numbers and other social infrastructure. It is imperative that if certain areas are going to be considered for development under the terms of the new authority it must be an all-encapsulating process, and these issues must also be addressed at the same time. There are a number of questions that I ask the minister to address in her reply. The authority that is being proposed and will be established once the bill becomes an act will have very significant powers. It raises a fear that that particular body could become difficult to control, as I understand has occurred in Western Australia. In addition, there are concerns by local government that this is an attempt or the first attempt to take control of development and planning for the foreseeable future. I ask the minister to address both of those issues and in particular how she intends to allay the fears of local government authorities that this is the first step of moving forward to control development across south-east Queensland and indeed throughout the state. One of the things that all governments are criticised for is putting in new layers of bureaucracy. A new authority by definition must bring with it a new layer of bureaucracy. Is there a risk of duplication of work by this bureaucracy as is required to be undertaken by the councils in developing their own master plans and also the LGMS documents, which I understand are to continue, once the amalgamation of councils is concluded? The third thing is that there is already a shortage of town-planners and skilled individuals that will be required by this new authority to put in place the required master planning. This brain drain could in fact drag resources and manpower away from the local government authorities. I am concerned that by doing so the local government authorities could find themselves with an even greater shortage of both that manpower and resources. In addition, the bill as I understand it does not compel the new authority to consider council concerns or aspirations. We all know that when a council prepares a master plan it generally looks at a much larger area than will be considered by this particular authority. There will be aspirations. There will also be concerns raised by the authority in those documents. How does the government intend the authority to gel those aspirations with the intention of the new authority? In addition, neighbourhood planning currently undertaken by council considers the whole of a community as opposed to a segment or a large block of land. For example, I refer to the Caloundra South precinct which is some 3,000 hectares in area and 1,700 hectares by way of development. That forms a critical part of the LGMS plan for Caloundra city in the foreseeable future. It is also possible that that is an area that this authority may consider given its size in order to develop affordable housing precincts. Given that the LGMS is already in place and incorporates Caloundra South, if such a situation exists elsewhere, how then does the new authority intend to deal with the aspirational concepts or aspirational ideas of the local government authority when taking such a large chunk out of the plan? In addition, there are concerns about how the state government is going to lower infrastructure charges. How is the government going to obtain the expertise and the knowledge and how is that going to fit with local charges and revenue-raising taxes imposed by local government bodies? The one area that I am concerned about is that the idea is to develop affordable housing, but as I understand the bill there are no specific pricing requirements within its terms. I understand that the legislation states the market value should be used in determining property prices. If we are going to use market value, are we then running the risk that the market value will direct a higher price than perhaps what the government or the authority believes is appropriate for affordable housing? If we are using market prices, which is exactly where we have got to today, how does the government intend to control those market forces to ensure that affordable housing does in fact become available to the younger people of this state? Does the government or the authority at least intend at some point in time to undertake a cost and time effectiveness study of the authority to establish whether or not it is dealing with the situation of affordable housing and other issues associated with the authority to the extent that it is in fact achieving its ultimate goal—that is, delivering services, delivering affordable housing and delivering the needs and necessities of the local population? In addition to that, does the government intend to package other reforms in other portfolios to ensure that people do in fact get over the housing crisis and younger people are able to access affordable housing in the future? Are there concerns or other issues regarding 06 Sep 2007 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 3163 stamp duty and other matters the government may introduce to assist this package? I have also already touched upon the LGMS. I am concerned about how the affordable housing issues contained within the authority documentation will impact upon the LGMS documentation. They could radically change the terms of the LGMS if the areas that they deal with in fact fall within the LGMS itself. In addition, there are certain areas of Queensland that have character attached to them. Is it the intention for the authority to ensure that the current sense of what an area is will be maintained if they are pulled into the authority precincts? Finally, there is a risk of a perception that we are developing two types of developers, that is, those who fall within the confines of the authority and will achieve the benefits under the legislation and those who will deal with the local government authorities on a one-on- one basis as they do at this point. My concern with that particular point is how we ensure that the playing field is level for the developers across all spectrums—those who fall within the authority and those who fall outside the terms of the bill before the House. As I said, we will support the bill before the House, but there are a number of amendments that the shadow minister will be proposing in the clauses section. Mrs REILLY (Mudgeeraba—ALP) (3.00 pm): I rise to support the Urban Land Development Authority Bill 2007 as I believe it to be a very important vehicle in addressing the crisis in housing affordability being experienced in south-east Queensland and indeed throughout the country. According to the Residential Development Council in an article in the Brisbane Times on 1 August, home ownership has become an unattainable dream for many low- to middle-income earners in Australia. The Beyond reach report examined the cost of owning or renting a house or unit for six household types in 16 metropolitan locations across the country. It shows that owning a median priced home in almost any location in Australia required a combined household income of about $100,000 while the average annual wage for workers is $55,000 a year. According to the report, not one of the 16 locations studied offered a median priced home that was affordable on that level of income. RDC executive director Ross Elliott said there were three major contributing factors to the housing affordability crisis: a lack of supply of land which had created artificial pressure on prices; a rapid escalation of up-front homebuyer taxes, fees, levies and charges; and excessive delays and costs in town planning decisions. When my husband and I first moved to the Gold Coast and bought our first home in 1993 we had a combined income of around $100,000 a year. We paid just $120,000 for our three-bedroom pole house in Carrara and were easily able to meet our repayments, get ahead, travel and live the lifestyle that young couples can and should enjoy when starting out their lives together. Sometimes it got tough because I was often between jobs or working casually, commuting to Brisbane and the like, but it was not as tough as it is now. Back then the housing market was stable and demand was low. Even six years later demand was still low and the market was still at a pretty low point on the Gold Coast. We sold and moved to a bigger house in Parkwood—a four-bedroom house with a pool and double garage—and we paid just over $200,000 for that. The market had hardly moved and investors were complaining about the low returns. Today a young couple starting out or a young family would need over $300,000 to buy the house we first bought, and their income is unlikely to be even as high as ours was then because we were earning good money. It does not take Einstein to work out that home owners today are under significantly more pressure than we were 14 years ago. Investors are now jumping up and down with glee as the prices for houses and home units have skyrocketed and demand continues to increase and rents soar. For some young people the dream of buying their own home is completely out of reach. For others the urge to move out of home and live independently in a budget rental while saving for a home deposit is just an impossibility. The only reason we could save for our first home was that rents were low enough that we could live comfortably and still put something away. The housing crisis gripping the nation has been well publicised and documented and the scenarios we used to see in Sydney, such as when my cousin bought a three-bedroom duplex an hour out of the city for $300,000 at the time we bought our first home, are now being repeated in Queensland. The recent census data from the ABS tells a chilling tale. The Social Sustainability Scorecard for the Gold Coast shows that housing stress in the region is amongst the highest in the country. In between the multimillion-dollar mansions framing Gold Coast beaches and the teetering exclusive mountain estates, average suburban Queenslanders are struggling like never before. Weekly household incomes are below the national and state average at $1,017 and the median household income is $94 less than in Brisbane and $10 less per week than the national median. But the median monthly mortgage is $180 more per month than in Brisbane, Queensland and Australia and represents 36.4 per cent of the median household income. Gold Coast city records the highest percentage of household income needed to service loan repayments in the country. Weekly rents in Gold Coast city are also much higher than in Brisbane, Queensland and Australia. Gold Coast city’s median weekly rent is $40 a week more than in Brisbane, $60 a week more than in Queensland and $70 per week more than that of Australia. The median rent for a three-bedroom unit has increased $110 per week—66.7 per cent in the past five years—from $165 a week to $275 a week. Gold Coast city records the highest percentage of household income needed to service rent payments in the country. The cost of housing is considered unaffordable when the cost of renting or 3164 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 06 Sep 2007 purchasing a home or unit is more than 30 per cent of household income. Of course, the impacts of unaffordable housing are greater among households with lower incomes with the added impact of increasing fuel prices and food prices. According to the Social Sustainability Scorecard, people in the Gold Coast city cannot afford to buy a home or unit if they are a primary schoolteacher, nurse, ambulance officer, electrician or retail shop assistant. If they are a single or sole income earning police officer, public servant or child-care worker, their income simply cannot meet the mortgage repayments and, in some instances, cannot even pay the rent. These people are the key workers necessary for the society and economy to function. Since I was elected in 2001, housing and the lack of affordable housing has been one of the most frequent issues brought to my office, often sadly when a person or family has hit crisis point and is at the risk of homelessness. Not a week goes by when I do not get at least one call from someone desperate to be considered for public housing for no reason other than financial stress. They simply cannot afford to rent in the open market. The demand for public housing as a result has gone through the roof over the past 10 years in direct correlation to the rising cost of housing and in direct correlation to the flawed federal government policies which ripped money out of public housing and stuck it into the pockets of investors through paltry rental subsidies paid to the lowest income earners. Much debate can and has been had by economists and no doubt will be had—and it has been had in this House over the past couple of days— regarding the causes of the nation’s housing crisis. However, it is what we do now that really matters. This government is interested in solutions and has developed the most comprehensive package of legislation and planning mechanisms ever seen in this state or, indeed, Australia to address this problem. They include the 25-year South East Queensland Regional Plan; the review and reform of urban planning and the Integrated Planning Act; significant funding for initiatives such as the Gold Coast and Brisbane housing companies; funding for homelessness strategies and shelters; and now this bill, which is a key initiative of the Queensland Housing Affordability Strategy. I heard the member for Moggill and Leader of the Liberal Party yesterday deride planning as a vehicle to achieve affordable housing. He said it was not a panacea to affordable housing. I was not surprised at his approach because he and his National Party buddies—sorry, colleagues; I do not think they are his buddies—supported an approach and governed an approach to development in this state for decades that was the antithesis of planning. It was more along the lines of, ‘How much money can you put up, mate?’ and, ‘If you leave a bit for me and the grandkids you can have as much land as you want.’ ‘Canals and high rises? No problem. Put them where you want them.’ No, they favoured the white shoe brigade, the willy-nilly, ‘she’ll be right, mate’, under-the-table approach that favours only the lucky few while the Beattie government favours an approach that provides an opportunity for all to participate and secures a roof over the heads of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged. It is called making it happen, and that is what this bill and the Queensland Housing Affordability Strategy will do. On many occasions I have sat through UDIA functions and met with developers to hear the recurring theme, ‘If only more land was available in appropriate areas with more support from government and more efficiency from councils, we could build more affordable housing.’ Freedom from the logjams and process inefficiencies, the opening up of land in a timely manner and the fair apportionment of infrastructure costs—that is what the housing sector has been calling out for, that is what the developers have been calling out for and that is what the community has been calling out for. It is that which this bill, through the authority and amendments to the Integrated Planning Act, will deliver. The bill establishes the Urban Land Development Authority to plan, carry out, promote or coordinate and control the development of land in certain designated areas declared as urban development areas. The authority will have the power to acquire and consolidate land in urban development areas suitable for new housing and ensure that it is moved quickly to the market. As we have heard, the authority will undertake the planning, management and delivery of strategic urban redevelopment sites initially at Fitzgibbon, Hamilton at Northshore, Bowen Hills, Woolloongabba and the Mackay Showgrounds. These sites will be improved and development controlled within the designated area to deliver government policy including, where appropriate, requiring developers to include public and affordable housing. The bill will enable the government to be more effective and proactive in providing land for urban development, particularly through major strategic infill and redevelopment sites, and will assist in the delivery of transit oriented development projects, such as the planned Varsity Lakes rail and transport hub, on which I have had a briefing and I am very much looking forward to seeing it created. In addition, the bill also creates a new tool for the state to address issues of land supply consistent with the regional plan or master plan for priority growth areas and to effect amendments to a local government planning scheme as quickly as possible to address housing affordability issues. Major development areas in south-east Queensland will be transitioned to become master planned areas. These areas can be protected by state planning regulatory provisions while the initial master plan is being prepared to ensure that the area is not compromised by inappropriate development. 06 Sep 2007 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 3165

There has been much concern about a particular parcel of land in my electorate which has been declared a major development area and is in the urban footprint. The land is known as Spiney’s land, or Spiney Bob’s land, and comes off Hinkler Drive. It is sandwiched by the urban areas of Worongary and Highland Park on the Pacific Highway. ‘Spiney’ Bob Anthes was a hermit who lived in a shack on 850 acres. He notoriously protected his land and his privacy with buckshot, if need be, if anyone trespassed. His lifelong wish was for his land to be bought by the government or the council and kept for conservation purposes—a haven of green space in the midst of an urban jungle. When he passed away the property was eventually sold on the open market. The current owner is running cattle over it while considering a future development application. Over the years I sought to meet Spiney Bob’s wishes. I met with his family members. I never actually met Spiney Bob—very few people did—but I know that his wishes were also the wishes of local community members and environmental groups. But in considering the purchase of land for conservation—and it was a question I frequently put to my government—the government quite rightly had to consider where those taxpayers’ dollars went and determined that there were other more worthy parcels on which taxpayers’ dollars should be spent, some of which were in my electorate at Springbrook and elsewhere in the state, including Cape York. With the land having stayed freehold and with the potential for development obvious, I then sought assurances from the Premier and the Deputy Premier that the strictest possible controls would be placed on this parcel of land and that the local community would have a say and a real input into the extent and type of development that could occur. That was provided by the land being declared of major development status. That does not mean that that land has to be developed. It does not mean that it cannot be developed. But it means that any development application has to come before the state government and it has to have a master plan. Any new development will need to meet the same levels of environmental protection and be subject to the same environmental constraints as would have been required prior to this legislation. This bill will continue to ensure that local communities can have input into the use and development of local land, such as Spiney’s, and that areas of environmental importance can be protected and community space can be preserved. I will be keeping an eye on what happens with Spiney Bob’s land. I know there is a desire to have some use of or development on that land. It is a big parcel of land. It has vegetation on it and flora and fauna reserves that really have not been mapped. So there are opportunities there to preserve as much as possible while providing for some appropriate development. But all of those things will come through the state government for approval and the community will have the opportunity to have their say. I hope that they continue to talk to me about what they want to see there. Since the announcement of this legislation other concerns have also been raised with me, and I will address some of those. Some people, including members of the opposition, claim that the government is rushing through this legislation. But that is not the case. It delivers on a key election promise—an election held a year ago. The Keeping the Australian Dream Alive election commitment included a very public promise to deliver policy and matching legislation by mid-2007. No more land has been declared urban. The sites that have been nominated for development by the ULDA are all contained within the urban footprint and represent just 25 per cent of the entire south-east Queensland region as identified in the South East Queensland Regional Plan. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Gecko and other groups regarding sustainability—this government agrees with those sentiments—and that is that they require community participation in the planning process and that consideration should be given to community values and environmental constraints and protection for habitat and other species. I want to ensure those groups and others with similar concerns that this bill legislates for community consultation on areas declared by the authority, including areas that are major development areas, such as Spiney Bob’s. Development is constrained by a commitment to planning principles that give effect to ecological sustainability and best practice urban design. Ecological sustainability is defined in the legislation as a balance that integrates the protection of ecological processes and natural systems at a local, regional, state and wider level; integrates economic development; and integrates the maintenance of the cultural, economic, physical and social wellbeing of people in communities. Natural species and habitat will be afforded protection under this bill. The same criteria will exist within a ULDA declared area to protect our natural environment and amenity as is required under existing government legislation. I am happy to continue raising these issues and other issues with the Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure, if desired. I can organise and facilitate meetings in the future to further explain the legislation and the policy and the role of the authority. But this is not a rushed response to a very real crisis in housing. In fact, some people in the housing affordability sector and advocates for affordability would say that it is a reaction that has been a long time coming. Welfare groups have been seeking a solution to our spiralling housing crisis for over a decade. The development industry, the UDIA, the Property Council and respected economic commentators have all called for more land to be released and for changes to the development assessment process to 3166 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 06 Sep 2007 ensure that applications are assessed to regulate infrastructure charges—in short, for governments to do exactly what the Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure is doing with this bill and the establishment of the authority. Far from rushing through this legislation, let me quote from a couple of media releases by the Property Council of Australia. On 28 June 2007 the council’s Queensland Executive Director, Robert Walker, said— The Property Council has long advocated the need to address the issue of land supply, which is currently the achilles heel of the national housing affordability crisis. And further on 21 July— Turning a blind eye to the issue of land release, the failing development assessment system and spiralling local government and infrastructure charges has led us to this point. Once again, the opposition has been caught napping. It is burying its head in the sand while crying crocodile tears for the ‘little Aussie Labor battlers’ as the member for Robina put it so patronisingly yesterday. The members opposite are suffering from policy envy. They did not think of it, so they do not like it. I know they will be supporting the bill, but they still want to have a little bit of a whinge, and I am sure they are going to have a bit of a whinge about some aspects of it during the consideration in detail stage. I certainly hope that developers who usually donate to the Liberal Party read this debate and in particular the contribution of the Leader of the Liberal Party. The alternative to this action is to do nothing and to allow continued urban sprawl to chip away at the Australian dream and the Australian lifestyle. To do nothing is to allow housing stress to continue to increase, to shatter more lives, to break up more families and to see more people hit the ranks of the homeless. We cannot do that. We have to step up to the plate. I want to congratulate the minister on her leadership and for stepping up, and I commend the bill to the House. Mr MOORHEAD (Waterford—ALP) (3.17 pm): It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the Urban Land Development Authority Bill 2007. This bill is a key part of implementing the Queensland Housing Affordability Strategy. The amendments to the Integrated Planning Act that are contained in this bill will be welcomed by my electorate. Housing is the No. 1 issue facing the people of my electorate. No other issue comes through the door of my electorate office more often than that of people seeking housing assistance. This bill will ensure that our development processes are able to bring land on to the market more quickly. Increasing the housing supply will benefit private ownership, private rental and also those people who currently rely on social and community housing. The measures in this bill are a holistic approach to a very complex question. This is missed by our federal government colleagues. The federal government has simply had in place demand side strategies like rent assistance. I think on any measure rent assistance has been proven to be an abject failure. The initiatives in this bill—like Kevin Rudd’s housing policy—are targeted at building both demand and supply side strategies and linking the two together. We cannot have one without the other. Rent assistance does not mean that one more house or one more unit of accommodation is made available. What both Kevin Rudd’s policy and this policy do is bring forward those housing units and make them available for people—particularly young families. Many of the areas that I represent have for a long time had a reputation of providing affordable housing. A recent report by the Bulletin listed those suburbs where the price of units have increased most. Two of the top five suburbs were in my area—that is, Kingston and Beenleigh. The areas traditionally known as providing affordable housing simply do not do that anymore. What is needed is to remove the logjams in the provision of housing. This bill provides three key strategies to that aim, giving the state government the ability to intervene where processes are failing or being held up and are not making new housing more affordable or more available. The bill creates the Urban Land Development Authority to take control of discrete areas and to plan, design and control development to ensure that land can be brought to the housing market more quickly and that this development has an appropriate mix of housing types. The second key element of this strategy is to provide the minister for local government with greater powers to intervene in the development approval process. The third key element is to provide transparency and equity in infrastructure charges. I will now make some comments about the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s Alert Digest No. 9 of 2007. I thank the Deputy Premier for the comprehensive explanatory memorandum provided with the bill and also, despite the allegations of the member for Moggill, the speedy response to the Alert Digest. The Alert Digest was tabled in the House on Tuesday and the response to those issues raised were provided the following day. In my short time on the committee often those responses are not provided until the next sitting of parliament. I thank the Treasurer and Deputy Premier for bringing that response forward so quickly. Paragraph 15 of the Alert Digest refers to parliament the question of whether the absence of merit appeal rights under clause 61 and clause 177 has sufficient regard to the rights and liberties of individuals. In respect of clause 61, the Alert Digest outlines the nine comprehensive and, in my view, quite reasonable justifications for the appeal rights to be those provided by the Judicial Review Act 1991 going to questions of illegality and jurisdiction rather than questions of merits review. Instead of complicated and lengthy appeal processes, which would frankly frustrate the whole purpose of this 06 Sep 2007 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 3167 legislation, this bill provides for the decision making to be made with communities in the planning stage rather than in the development approval process, with the final decision to be made by a minister who answers to parliament. In respect of clause 177, when considering that the appeal avenues have been limited, one should look at the nature of the power provided to the minister. The power is a key measure in the reforms, providing the planning minister with the ability to intervene in the process and remove logjams in processes conducted by assessment managers. This is a procedural responsibility. It is not for ministers to make the decision by the assessment manager or concurrence agency but for the minister to make others involved in the IDAS process make the decisions they are required to make and to make them in a timely fashion. This is not only reasonable but also entirely sensible and necessary. There is a great deal of frustration with many involved in the development approval process, particularly in that part of my electorate that is run by the Gold Coast City Council. I hope that the ability of the minister to control this process will mean that there will be less requirement for the minister to call in applications in the future. This is about making the assessment managers make the decisions that they are required to. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee also raises in its report clause 6 and the concern about provision of a Henry VIII clause. Essentially clause 6 provides that by regulation the minister will be able to categorise developments as assessable development, self-assessable development and UDA exempt development. Obviously with this categorisation comes different levels of scrutiny under the provisions of the act. What is in this provision is a question of definition with the terms used analogous to those categories used in schedule 8 of the Integrated Planning Act. This categorisation will be a key part of this scheme in that the UDA development schemes must be approved by regulation. Options for disallowance are provided, as with any other regulation, ensuring that the regulation is not used to avoid the scrutiny of parliament. The provision does, in my view, have sufficient regard to the institution of parliament. The development of the Urban Land Development Authority is a visionary initiative which provides direct intervention to ensure quick effective development in discrete areas providing a mix of housing required by our community. The bill provides the power for government to declare an area an urban development area. I understand that there are five sites that have been identified as those initially before the Urban Land Development Authority, including a site at Woolloongabba. I understand that this is a site currently housing Goprint and the Lands Department. I hope that this change will be an opportunity for Goprint to move to industrial premises outside of the metropolitan area and will provide an opportunity for that business to grow and make the best of the recent investment by the government in that business. ULDA will acquire and amalgamate land. It has a role to make a development scheme as soon as that land is declared to be an urban development area. It will make a development scheme which will include land use planning and planning for infrastructure. Importantly, the scheme must ensure the ongoing availability of affordable housing options for low- to moderate-income households. The consultation process is to be provided in a detailed development scheme, moving the decision making into the planning process rather than into the development approval process. This is an important measure which ensures that development is not a question of ad hoc debate at the last minute and the matter is resolved at the earlier stage providing certainty for both developers and the community at the planning stage. Obviously this process is conducted with the oversight of the minister and a power to call in. This strong intervention is required to ensure proper planning and development where market failure and the development approval processes have been beyond the control of local government. Once completed and the scheme is in place, the ULDA will be able to hand back control of the site to the relevant local government. In the time I have left to me I would like to talk about the changes to the Integrated Planning Act and the regulation of infrastructure charges. This bill will also bring a greater degree of rigour and certainty to the charging of infrastructure charges by council. This has been a major frustration to many in my electorate. A number of groups have raised this issue with me, including the Beenleigh RSL, the Beenleigh Sports Club and the recently proposed Beenleigh cinema development. What is required is to move from the current transitional arrangements used by councils to a schedule of infrastructure charges where applicants have a clear understanding of their obligations. The methodology of infrastructure charging schedules published by councils will be able to be examined by the Queensland Competition Authority which can make recommendations and provide independent advice to the minister prior to their approval. As well, applicants will be able to resolve disputes about the application of the charging schedules to the building and development tribunals. I am sure these measures will be welcomed by developers, builders and first-home buyers and will support a less expensive and greater supply of housing, particularly in growing outer urban areas like the Waterford electorate. I have already made some reference to the provisions of clause 177 and the power of the planning minister to make directions. This power gives the minister the ability to make procedural decisions to ensure that the integrated development assessment system is not frustrated by 3168 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 06 Sep 2007 assessment managers and referral agencies. This power is a power to require decisions to be made in a stated time or to resolve conflicts between agencies. Businesses in my electorate, particularly on the Gold Coast, are frustrated by delays in this process and continual and repeated requests for further information. Every day that this process is delayed means houses are not being brought to the market. That means increased costs to the developers which are then passed on to the homebuyers. There is no sense in this land remaining vacant or underdeveloped because these processes simply are not working. I hope that having this power will mean that it will not have to be used to any great extent. This will bring greater accountability for assessment managers to ensure they are actually doing what they are required to do. This simply is about providing the minister for planning with an ability to make sure assessment managers are doing what is already required of them. I think this is an important piece of legislation that will go a long way to addressing the issue of housing affordability faced by people in my electorate. I commend it to the House. Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—Lib) (3.31 pm): I rise to speak to the Urban Land Development Authority Bill 2007. In doing so, I would like to place on record that the Liberal Party does support responsible and sustainable development, and therefore we discard the presumptions to the contrary made by the honourable member for Aspley and other members opposite as inaccurate and mischievous. I have received correspondence and representations from a number of stakeholders in and around my electorate who oppose a number of the amendments contained in this bill. No-one has disputed the need for more affordable housing and forward planning of the same. However, it is the lack of planning by this Labor government that has added to the housing stress we are now experiencing. In typical fashion, Labor is now playing catch-up and rushing this legislation, which is termed the ‘Urban Land Disaster Authority’ by some detractors who hold grave fears for remaining habitats that contain endangered species. It is a bit rich of the member for Mudgeeraba to claim the government is delivering on an election promise from a year ago. The South East Queensland Regional Plan appeared in a hurry, and look how easily it has been abused, particularly in my electorate. As members have already heard from my colleagues on this side of the House, we have a number of reservations with regard to this bill. The honourable member for Moggill and shadow Treasurer revealed the flaws the government is trying to push through in his speech yesterday. Whenever we see a proposal like this which replaces local government with an arm of state government in the form of the ULDA, you can rest assured that it presages action by the government to use the land in a way which would not comply with existing council planning provisions and which would be opposed by the affected ratepayers, probably on reasonable grounds of loss of amenity and property value, inherent in the established conditions under which they acquired and owned their property. As stated in the explanatory notes, the reason for the bill is to establish the Urban Land Development Authority which will plan, undertake, promote, coordinate and control, supposedly, the development of certain areas of land in Queensland for urban purposes. This bill introduces amendments to the Integrated Planning Act 1997 which will enable the minister to consider and decide conflicts among state referral agencies, local government and the applicant in respect of the integrated development assessment system, the IDAS. It will also provide for the minister to refer infrastructure charges schedules to the Queensland Competition Authority, provide for appeals to the Building and Development Tribunal, enable the minister to introduce state planning instruments to affect the operation of planning schemes, provide for the implementation of regional plans across Queensland, extend the use of major development area designations under the South East Queensland Regional Plan to identify areas proposed for urban development, provide regulatory support for structure plans and master plans through state planning regulatory provisions, and provide for state infrastructure charges. In addition, consequential amendments have been made to a number of other acts. One particular area of concern I would like to address is clause 3. Clause 3(1) provides that particular parts of the state will be declared as urban development areas and the ULDA will be established to plan, carry out, promote or coordinate, and control the development of these areas. It is important that well considered actions that will speed up consideration of development proposals are supported. Yet what is it that the ULDA will be able to do that councils cannot do, given the same new powers being provided to the ULDA? Can the government confirm if each of the councils currently in control of the five areas identified in this bill have been unable to expeditiously process development applications because of flaws in the present legislation covering council planning authorities? Or is the government concerned that councils are too close to their ratepayers and act in their interest rather than the wider area or regional needs? Some objectors claim this legislation is designed to override the anticipated complaints of adjacent property owners who fear this legislation may result in inappropriate developments. I have spoken in this House a number of times in respect of community concerns in my electorate which arose from the approval of the CoYou/Devine development in Currumbin Valley. This particular development, listed in the South East Queensland Regional Plan and brought into this House by Terry Mackenroth as 06 Sep 2007 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 3169 his parting gift to state politics before he retired, clearly indicates it is outside the urban footprint. Whilst neither it nor the surrounding area is currently identified as an area of interest under this bill and the application was passed by Gold Coast City Council after a robust court battle, the concerns regarding approvals of development in inappropriate locations remain the same. The people of Currumbin Valley feel very strongly about their community and quality of lifestyle and certainly I feel this would also be true in the other communities currently identified. I stand side by side with my community on this issue and feel very strongly that efforts like this to take away the opportunity for community consultation are both deplorable and undemocratic. In effect, this bill reflects the government acknowledging the failures of its past incompetence, with pressing demands and a growing population in the future. Clause 3(2) identifies that the main purpose of the bill is to facilitate— (a) the availability of land for urban purposes; (b) the provision of a range of housing options to address diverse community needs; (c) the provision of infrastructure for urban purposes; (d) planning principles that give effect to ecological sustainability and best practice urban design— I might add that I do have some of the best urban practice design in the Ecovillage in the Currumbin Valley. The bill also facilitates— (e) the provision of an ongoing availability of affordable housing options for low to moderate income households. Clause 3(3) also defines the range of housing options, and it says— Range of housing options, to address diverse community needs, means the range of housing required to meet the range of community needs, including, for example, housing of different size, type, price, built form, density, cost, adaptability and tenure. In the Currumbin electorate we are continually inundated with requests to assist people find accommodation, whether it be rental, purchase or public housing. Currently, the public waiting list on the Gold Coast is approximately 11 years in some areas, and the lack of long-term rental accommodation in this tourist destination certainly makes it very difficult for people wanting to settle here. I agree that housing affordability is a major state and national issue. The Blair Athol crisis accommodation at Bilinga in my electorate turns away 5,000 people who are seeking shelter every single year. But it really beggars belief that, given the shortage of public housing on the Gold Coast, the department chose recently to sell off a large parcel of land at Elanora which would have been suitable for mixed needs and would have delivered a significant number of affordable dwellings. Instead, the government has chosen to build one-bedroom units for low-income earners in need of housing assistance who may include but will not be limited to those who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless—and this is right across the road from the beach on prime real estate on the Gold Coast Highway. The 2006 ABS census revealed more than half a million Australian households—some 547,000— were suffering mortgage stress and another half a million were suffering rental stress. According to the Housing Industry Association, this situation has worsened since the census with a third of households with mortgages—that is, 624,000—now being in mortgage stress. Also disturbing is that, according to the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority, mortgage insurance claims have risen from $49 million a year to $210 million, which is a 329 per cent rise since 2005. If the government’s intention is to provide land for affordable housing which would favourably impact upon the cost of land in urban areas, then it needs to apply a holistic approach which would involve extension of public transport and the provision of adequate services. Plenty of people would pay for affordable housing if they were in an area which has access to services. They would be quite willing to travel for half an hour, but in many situations there is little or no transport. That is a very real issue for the majority of people. What guarantees is the government giving to the people of Queensland that these basic services will be adequately provided in the future? Shouldn’t we be settling people where they have a chance to buy, not in places like Bowen Hills where prices are sky high? These are questions which the government must answer along with the question of cost recovery. Labor governments are proven poor economic managers, so why would we trust them? Regional plans provide strategic direction for the growth and development in a region over a 20- to 25-year time period. In Currumbin we have had passenger rail infrastructure identified as a long-term project—one which is intrinsically linked to the growing demands for housing in the area. What smacks of hypocrisy is the government’s claim that it wants to do something about making land available for housing but it is not proactive in its efforts to put in place infrastructure before development occurs. It is incongruous to hear the minister for transport complain yesterday about road congestion on the Gold Coast when the government does not establish major public transport nodes to service communities. The people of Lakewoods Estate in Elanora have been seeking a bus service for over five years and yet this has fallen on deaf ears in this government. 3170 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 06 Sep 2007

Part 5B of the bill seeks to address issues relating to the timely and efficient planning and development of land in declared high-growth areas. Certainly what needs to be addressed is job opportunities in decentralised locations, and only through this will affordable housing work. The bill also adopts state planning regulatory provisions which can be used in four circumstances. They are to implement a regional plan, implement structure plans for master planned areas, allow the planning minister to respond to state issues in local areas by affecting the operation of planning schemes, and to apply state infrastructure charges within master planned areas. Certain clauses in the bill raise issues in relation to fundamental legislative principles and I understand these have been addressed before. The legislation does not have sufficient regard to the rights and liberties of individuals because of the absence of appeal rights concerning development in urban development areas. There are provisions within the Integrated Planning Act 1997 about development, yet there is no general right of appeal on the merits against a refusal to grant or the imposition of conditions on a UDA development approval. Also there is no general right of appeal by people who have made submissions against the grant of a UDA development approval if the development approval is granted. UDAs will only apply to small parts of the state intended for fast-tracking of development in particular areas where there is a state interest. The need for approval under the bill is triggered by what category the proposed development falls under and leaves it up to particular development schemes for urban development areas to specify the categories for development under each scheme. I can only conclude that the rationale for this bill is the usurping of local government which routinely handles development applications as quickly as state government direction permits and the interests of local ratepayers demand. Put bluntly, this is little more than a state planning authority money grab. If there is a genuine concern that the red tape surrounding developmental approval is too time consuming, then the Labor government should identify the impediments and remove them for the benefit of councils and developers. The fact remains that outlying suburbs are inadequately supported with essential services such as transport, health and education, and this government is to blame for their neglect. However, the worst aspect of this hastily prepared bill is the arrogant stripping of power away from councils and even more critically local communities, placing this power directly into a state authority’s plans. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but sooner or later they revolt when they realise that they have had their rights to have a say denied, as they have with this bill. Mr WETTENHALL (Barron River—ALP) (3.44 pm): The Urban Land Development Authority Bill has three key policy objectives: firstly, to make housing in Queensland more affordable; secondly, to enable the implementation of statutory regional plans throughout the state including, I am happy to say, the Far North Queensland Regional Plan 2025; thirdly, to introduce a master planning process to improve the efficiency of planning and development of large greenfield urban expansion areas or urban areas targeted for comprehensive redevelopment; and, fourthly, to ensure funding for state infrastructure is a transparent and equitable process. Many members during this debate have focused—understandably—on the issue of housing affordability. This is understandable as it is a barbecue stopper issue in our electorates. I hope all members share the widespread community concern that many people, particularly young people and people on lower incomes, are being priced out of the housing market or are suffering what we have now come to term housing stress. That is to say, they are spending a disproportionate amount of their income on housing. The causes of skyrocketing house and land prices are the subject of much debate. The real position is that there is a range of factors at work that have an impact on housing affordability including on the supply and demand side of the ledger. But the complexity of the issues and the diversity of responses urged by various sectors have not deterred this government from playing its part in resolving the problem. That is why this Labor government convened the housing and land supply forum in December 2006 which informed the development of the Queensland government’s Housing Affordability Strategy, launched in July 2006. Measures contained in this bill implement key components of the government’s Housing Affordability Strategy, and they are directed to improve the planning and development system, land supply and infrastructure funding systems. Consistent with this government’s determination to ensure that all Queenslanders should have the opportunity to benefit from Queensland’s booming economy, the measures contained in this bill will play their part in putting more affordable homes on the market. Of particular importance to the people of far-north Queensland, however, are the measures contained in this bill that facilitate the implementation of statutory regional planning throughout the state, and in far-north Queensland in particular. During the election campaign in 2006 Premier Beattie announced that far-north Queensland would have the first statutory regional plan outside of south-east Queensland. I was particularly delighted with that announcement, because I firmly believe that regional planning is the best way to 06 Sep 2007 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 3171 manage the growth that this state is experiencing in a way that guides investment and preserves the landscapes and environment that are precious to Queenslanders and that are the most important attractions for visitors from interstate and overseas. Although the original Far North Queensland Regional Plan, known as FNQ 2010, was launched seven years ago in 2000, and did result in strong partnerships across government, business and the community, it lacked the force of law, and the voluntary process resulted in a high level of variance in the process, structures and content of individual plans throughout the state. The statutory regional plan that the Premier announced and which is now in full swing with a $3.7 million commitment by this government will assist the development of a consistent and contemporary framework for effective regional planning across Queensland. Indeed, a review of regional planning exercises around the world has revealed that the Far North Queensland Statutory Regional Plan, FNQ 2025, will be one of the very few such plans in the tropics. The far-north Queensland region covers some 74,000 square kilometres and includes the regional city of Cairns and extends north to Cape Tribulation, west to Herberton and south to Cardwell. FNQ 2025 will provide the planning framework for the next 20 years by coordinating integrated planning at the regional level. This will be achieved by identifying an agreed regional vision, desired regional outcomes, policies and actions to achieve those outcomes, desired future spatial structure of the region—including regional land use patterns; provision of regional infrastructure; and environmental, economic and cultural resources to be preserved, maintained and developed—and implementation, monitoring and review. We need a regional plan backed by the force of law in far-north Queensland because our region is experiencing rapid population growth. The estimated population of the region as at 30 June 2006 was 220,733 people. That was an increase of 5,057 people, or 2.3 per cent, on the previous year. Up to June 2005, the population had been growing at a rate of 1.9 per cent. By 2011, the expected population will be between 229,500 and 240,000 people. More dramatic though is that by 2026 this is expected to grow to 262,000 at the lower end or up to 317,500 people at the upper end. I confidently predict that the population will reach the upper end of those ranges. As a member of the regional planning advisory council that will be advising the minister on the development of this plan, I certainly will be urging the adoption of the higher end of the population projections. It is also interesting to note that the median age will rise from 36, as it is now, to 41 by 2026. As the main centre in the region, Cairns City is expected to absorb the lion’s share of this growth. The estimated population of Cairns as at 30 June 2006 was 136,558, an increase of 7,892 people, or 6.1 per cent, over the year. I have heard a lot of members in the House this afternoon and yesterday talking about the phenomenal population growth of south-east Queensland, but growth of 6.1 per cent is absolutely phenomenal, and that is what we have been experiencing in Cairns City over the past 12 months. Those figures compare with an increase of 3,339 people, or 2.7 per cent, in the year ended June 2005. What does that translate to in the out years? By 2007 the population of Cairns will be between 140,000 and 148,000. By 2026, roughly the end of the planning period for the current statutory plan, we can expect to have a population in Cairns City of between 166,000 and 207,000. As I said before, I confidently predict that the real figures will be at the higher end of that range. If I am right, that means that in Cairns City in 20 years time we will have an extra 70,000 people. The raw numbers I accept do not compare with the population growth in south-east Queensland, but in proportional terms they are staggering. Of the extra 7,892 people who made up the population growth in Cairns over the past 12 months, 2,078 were people who migrated to the region—and why wouldn’t you, with our fantastic climate, our friendly and vibrant communities, and our wonderful natural attractions including our two World Heritage areas. These figures confirm what everybody who lives in Cairns already knows—our city is booming. There are more cars on our roads, more kids in our schools, more people using our health services and more people taking advantage of the lifestyle options that our climate and natural environment offer. These trends underlie the importance of planning for growth. Above all, the natural features of our region—our World Heritage areas, our rainforests, our reefs, our coastal headlands and beaches, our rivers, creeks and wetlands, our hillslopes—make up what it means to live in far-north Queensland. I certainly hope that the regional planning exercise that we are undertaking now will add a layer of protection to these magnificent sea and landscapes for the future benefit of the people who live in our region, who will come to live in our region and who will visit our region. Tourism certainly plays a key role in the tropics and in our communities. As I have mentioned in this House on other occasions, it is the most important industry in far-north Queensland. Tourism in far- north Queensland, like elsewhere, but particularly in the tropics, is inherently linked to our healthy environment and the tropical climatic characteristics of the region. These climatic characteristics also necessitate an emphasis on tropical building design which is responsive to our local climate and sustainable development outcomes. 3172 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 06 Sep 2007

No meaningful discussion of regional planning could ignore the issue of climate change. As I have also said on many occasions before in the House, climate change has the potential to particularly affect our tropical regions. I am very pleased to say that climate change is an issue that is being dealt with in the course of developing our statutory regional plan in far-north Queensland. Climate change and natural hazards and their cumulative effects present particular vulnerabilities to tropical regions, and our planning responses need to address those natural hazards. An increased threat of more intense cyclones, prolonged dry spells, storm surges and tsunamis are all potential consequences of climate change, and they are being taken very seriously in the development of our statutory regional plan—and so they should be. That is another reason why the statutory regional plan is such an important undertaking in far-north Queensland. I am also happy to say that in the course of developing this plan not only are we looking in the out years to the potential effects of climate change but we are also looking at the potential consequences of peak oil. As I said only this week in the House when I was discussing the government’s investment in the Cairns Airport, aviation is one of the most important industries in Cairns. It supports a quarter of the jobs in the region. We would be foolish to ignore the consequences of rising oil prices to the aviation industry and to tourism in far-north Queensland. It is particularly pleasing that those issues, as unfashionable as they once were, are now being incorporated into our regional planning process. What are the characteristics of our regional tropical character? They are our sense of spaciousness and openness, a dominant natural environment, a pleasant climate which facilitates and encourages outdoor activities and promotes a lifestyle associated with the outdoors, and a strong physical and psychological connection with nature and natural elements. I am pleased to say that in the course of developing the statutory regional plan a review has been undertaken of where regional planning is taking place in other parts of the world. As I mentioned earlier, FNQ 2025 is at the cutting edge of regional planning in the tropics. Very limited comprehensive regional planning is occurring elsewhere in tropical regions. I hope and expect that FNQ 2025 will be a model that will be adopted and adapted in other tropical regions not only in Australia but around the world. I want to take this opportunity to thank and acknowledge the fine work that is being done by officers in the department of local government and planning and also all of the people who have contributed their skills, experience, energy and passion to protect our region and plan for future growth. I also thank all who have contributed to this process, because community consultation is a feature of the regional planning process. It was a feature of the south-east Queensland plan when, from memory, there were over 80,000 individual submissions. I am very pleased to say that it is a feature of the planning process going on in far-north Queensland. The regional planning process is occurring in other places. It is occurring in California, in Florida, in Oregon, in Vancouver in Canada, in the United Kingdom and in New Zealand. All of those places are looking more and more to planning for future growth on a regional basis. When one looks at the planning exercises around the world, the themes that emerge are these: high amenity of urban environments; the efficient use of land in a compact urban form; a balanced transportation system with a focus on public transportation and choice; a healthy and vibrant and diverse economy; protection of farmland and the natural environment; sustainable use and protection of the region’s resources, including infrastructure; building complete communities; and, very relevantly in the course of this debate, diverse housing options with a focus on affordable housing. Sustainability is a guiding principle across all elements of the regional planning process and of the regional plans and strategies. They adopt a visionary strategic approach with a 20- to 50-year time frame and a focus on outcomes. They collaborate across all sections of government and the community. They have community support and strong community engagement. They adopt a strong adaptable management practice. Their implementation is supported, as is facilitated by this bill, by legislation and they have the force of law. They encourage a compact urban form that promotes hierarchical and corridor growth with effective public transportation links and the protection of the natural, agricultural and open spaces and they are linked to infrastructure planning that includes physical, social and environmental infrastructure. The Far North Queensland 2025 plan facilitated by this bill is going to be great for far-north Queensland and for this state. Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (4.04 pm): James Kunstler has famously said that urban sprawl will come to be seen as the greatest waste of resources in human history. This strikes me as a big call in a world that pulps Tasmanian wilderness and provides tax breaks for gas-guzzling four-wheel drives in the full knowledge of peak oil. But there is no doubt that even in the company of these abominations sprawl is a momentous waste of resources. Sprawl kills wildlife by consuming bushland. It chews up productive agricultural land and spits it back out as unproductive housing. It drives climate change by making public transport unviable and forcing car commutes, and it destroys the shared public space and a shared public experience that is the essence of healthy community. To its enduring credit, this government has taken serious steps to halt the almost endless sprawl that was, when councils were solely responsible for planning, threatening to destroy the liveability for which south-east Queensland is famous. 06 Sep 2007 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 3173

While Queensland had historically had no real culture of regional planning, that changed in 2005 when then Treasurer Terry Mackenroth produced the South East Queensland Regional Plan. With an urban growth boundary, an accompanying infrastructure plan that funded public transport and a commitment to transit-oriented development, the regional plan is essentially New Urbanist in principle. Two years down the track this Urban Land Development Authority Bill is a logical next step. The primary purpose of the bill is to address those minor aspects of housing affordability which lie within the gambit of the state. It does this in three key ways. First, it streamlines the development application process, reducing delays which cost developers money; second, it establishes clear and consistent mechanisms for infrastructure charges, although I commend the decision not to bend to the development lobby’s pressure to abandon or reduce the contributions to public infrastructure which ultimately funds its profits; and, third, it will release public land for development, although it should be acknowledged, as I have argued in this place before, that the natural end of sprawl—the fact that we have simply consumed all of the land within an hour’s drive of the CBD rather than artificial limits on land supply—is the primary driver of increases in land cost. The bill will not entirely on its own overcome the housing affordability problem. Again, as I have argued before, there are a number of reasons for the housing affordability problem in this country. They include the perverse tax incentives that give investors tax advantages in the competitive market over first homebuyers and thereby push up prices. There are a number of reasons. A major reason for the housing affordability problem is that Australians choose now to build houses that are half as big again as those houses they were building in the 1950s despite the fact that about a third fewer people live in them. So there is also an element of choice in people building houses that are simply bigger than many of us need. I noticed in the Weekend Australian last weekend Matt Price described as the new political incorrectness the idea that we should suggest to people that they moderate their expectations or indeed their aspirations by choosing the products which they can afford. There is an element of a new political incorrectness these days in suggesting to people, regardless of their income, that perhaps they cannot have absolutely everything they might want. I think that this bill is a substantial step on the part of the state government to manage those aspects of housing affordability like land supply and development costs which are within our power. But there are a number of other aspects of the housing affordability problem which are quite simply federal matters and which the federal government should really step up and acknowledge. While it may not have been this bill’s most publicised purpose, in establishing development areas and creating an Urban Land Development Authority with powers to purchase and consolidate land and write statutory plans for those areas, this bill creates the mechanism by which the state can take the next step from the New Urbanism embodied in the regional plan to a genuine embrace of good urban design, particularly in the inner city. Just yesterday I had the pleasure of having lunch with the renowned Danish urban designer Jan Gehl, who was here for an urban design conference at the Gold Coast. Mr Gehl is one of the key people who has been responsible for the transformation of Copenhagen since the early 1960s. In Copenhagen, deliberate policies around walking and opening up public space have created an inner city where huge plazas are filled with cafes and pedestrians. The transport mix in that city is an astonishing 36 per cent of journeys taken by bike, 33 per cent by public transport and around 22 per cent by private car. It is easy for us to look at that and say, ‘That is just Europe,’ but that is just good policy. It was just inspirational to listen to Mr Gehl talk about what good policy has created in Copenhagen. He also talked about other extraordinary examples across the world. As I said, he talked about Copenhagen, Strasbourg and Curitiba in Brazil. Importantly for those of us here, he talked about Melbourne and the transformation that the Melbourne CBD has undergone as a result of good public policy around public transport and inviting public spaces. With our beautiful river, our great cultural precinct and our subtropical climate, the possibilities for Brisbane as a result of this kind of good urban design policy are absolutely endless. There is real potential for Brisbane to become a world city that invites walking and biking and that has great public space. I would hope through some of the mechanisms that this bill envisages that we will finally begin to realise some of that potential for Brisbane as a city of great public space. This bill, as I said, provides the catalyst for the state to move from regional planning into the whole new world of city design. It offers the same opportunity for the wonderful City of Ipswich. Let me explain why. At its heart, the regional plan aims, as I have said here before, to prevent the nightmare scenario for south-east Queensland: an endless, soulless and jobless sprawl stretching from Noosa to Coolangatta. It aims to do that by facilitating density and transit oriented development in Brisbane, but it also aims to do it, importantly, by drawing population to the west. Ipswich, with its existing sense of community, its industrial land for jobs growth and its existing road and rail infrastructure, is absolutely the key to the quality growth in south-east Queensland. If we can make the western corridor work as a host of jobs and population growth then south-east Queensland will grow well. Already there is a strong commitment to that idea on the part of the state. Through the infrastructure plan, which was updated recently, the state proposes to spend $11.2 billion on infrastructure in the western corridor in the years ahead, and that is not just a number on a page. A lot of 3174 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 06 Sep 2007 that work is already underway. Stage 1A of the Western Corridor Recycled Water Scheme has commenced operation, the Centenary Highway extension to Yamanto is on track to open in 2009 and a rail corridor is being preserved to link Springfield through to Ipswich. While, as Aldous Huxley has said, human beings have an almost limitless capacity to take things for granted, we the people of Ipswich should not take for granted this enormous investment in infrastructure in our local region. This focus in terms of attention and dollars on the Ipswich region is historically unprecedented. Members will know, however, that I have long argued that the key to making the western corridor work is not just the infrastructure spend; it is also absolutely crucial that we revitalise the Ipswich CBD. If the Ipswich CBD is not an attractive place which draws people to work, to shop, to listen to a band or just to spend time, then the western corridor will simply be ‘commuterville’ on the edge of Brisbane. I would like to see Ipswich declared as a development area under the provisions of this bill so that the Urban Land Development Authority can play a role in consolidating holdings and structure planning in the inner city. I have a strong interest in urban design and planning and to me, as I am sure to many others, the possibilities for the Ipswich CBD are immense. Ipswich people should pause for a moment and imagine a city that is easily accessible by bike from all the inner suburbs. Imagine a city where there are walking paths along the river from One Mile to Booval. Imagine a city with more than one road bridge so that the main street of town does not have to be a busy arterial road. We should imagine a city where people want to walk around, where there is public art, where the heritage buildings are being restored rather than simply decaying before our eyes and where there is a feeling that this is a green, happy and healthy place to be. We should imagine that Woolworths is gone so it is an easy walk from our world-class Ipswich Art Gallery, which incidentally the state government built, to River Heart and on to the Workshops Rail Museum. There is no reason why Ipswich cannot be a world-class small city. Indeed, it has to be if the western corridor and, hence, the regional plan are going to work. In recent years, we have made substantial steps in that direction. Six and a half years ago when I was elected, the construction of the art gallery and the Workshops Rail Museum, thanks to David Hamill’s efforts, were underway but they were not yet open. River Heart did not exist. There was no street dining in the centre of town and there were no plans to do up the railway station, something which today is just about to get started. So in six and a half years an enormous amount of progress has taken place in inner Ipswich. While all that progress has been made, the city, however, has two substantial challenges. The first is that the Riverlink development tragically has been allowed to be built at more than 10,000 square metres of additional retail space than the state government, in fact, approved. This has created 10,000 extra square metres of unlawful competition for the Ipswich CBD. Despite the improvements that I talked about such as River Heart and other public infrastructure, today many CBD traders are finding it harder than they have before. The other real difficulty I believe and the other real tragedy of the Riverlink development is that they have simply shown very little inclination to meet their development conditions. The pedestrian bridge still has not been built. I have to say I find it hard to believe the promise that it will be built by Christmas. The developers had to be dragged kicking and screaming through the courts by the state government to meet their other conditions around provision of traffic lights on main roads. To some extent it is too late to do anything with Riverlink other than continue to pursue the conditions, which is something that the state government is very diligently doing. We do, however, have another substantial ongoing problem and that is Memo Corporation, the owner of the Ipswich City Square, which refuses to either invest in or sell its property, the city square. As I said in this place in 2001, Memo’s attitude to the people of Ipswich through its neglect of the city square remains an absolute disgrace. Right now the state and the council are doing the work necessary to plan a better Ipswich CBD. The $2.2 million Ipswich CBD master planning process now underway is bringing together some world- class urban planners and designers in a public master planning exercise for the city. I am thrilled with the quality of work that is being undertaken here, but I do remain concerned that the planning and urban design problems of the Ipswich CBD cannot really be fixed while Memo Corporation continues to take this negligent approach to its management of the city centre’s most prominent landholding. Given the importance of central Ipswich to the prospects for quality growth in south-east Queensland, I think there is a real crying need for intervention. I would hope, as I said, that the government seriously considers gazetting Ipswich CBD as a development area so that the Urban Land Development Authority can take legislative and planning control and can take a role in consolidating some of those holdings which have been so disgracefully neglected over a period now of almost two decades. This bill is very exciting stuff. As I have said in this chamber previously, it is my very firm view that in the decade ahead the world will fundamentally change. Already in the last year or so we have seen a substantial change in the Australian political debate as finally we have begun to get it about climate change. The real issue though will be that in the very near future we will start to understand peak oil and we will start to realise that, all things being equal, it is reasonable to suspect that world oil supply will begin to decline in the years ahead and that the price of oil will substantially rise. 06 Sep 2007 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 3175

We will also begin to confront other real challenges of resource shortages, just as we have recently begun to confront some real challenges—I think on the part of this government very well—in the area of oil. Peak oil is an enormous challenge. If we do not deal with it well, it could be an utter disaster for our society. But planning for it well involves a number of things. It involves investing in public transport, it involves creating more dense urban areas so that people can walk or ride their bikes, it involves recreating urban spaces and it involves protecting agricultural land close to the city where we live. To a great extent the regional plan creates a very good framework through which we can do those things. The great opportunity for us is that, although peak oil is in itself utterly frightening, many of the remedies that we would use to plan for it are, in fact, great opportunities to create better cities than we have currently—to create cities with great public spaces where people walk, where people cycle, where people come together in the streets and where we enjoy again a wonderful urban life. This bill is an important step in creating those great urban spaces in both Brisbane and in Ipswich which people can genuinely enjoy and which lead to a good quality of life. Therefore, in my view this bill creates some important powers to help us deal with the enormous resource challenges that we confront. But it also creates a great opportunity for us to embrace once more the urban spaces and the urban life that are the key to livability and quality of life in south-east Queensland. I firmly commend this bill to the House. Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport) (4.21 pm): It is my pleasure to speak in support of the Urban Land Development Authority Bill and to follow the member for Ipswich, who is passionate about principles of good urban design and for appropriate planning systems and controls to facilitate development—not to stop development but to ensure that development occurs in this prosperous state—to the long-term benefit of the communities that that development seeks to serve. I wanted to make a few short remarks in support of the bill, given the extensive amendments that it makes to the Integrated Planning Act. As the Deputy Premier outlined in her second reading speech, this bill makes a range of amendments to the Integrated Planning Act that go to the heart of making sure that the original vision of the Integrated Planning Act—to provide for a framework that allowed for an integration of decision making—is, in fact, enhanced. I believe that what we see with the Integrated Planning Act is a principle of integration and a principle of systemic decision making that remains as sound today as it was in 1997. The execution of that fundamentally requires assistance and fundamentally requires our attention. That is being dealt with in large part by the amendments that are before the House today and certainly in further amendments to the way in which the Integrated Planning Act will operate into the future that I also foreshadowed in this House during the last sitting of parliament. I want to make a couple of remarks about this bill and the amendments that it makes to the Integrated Planning Act. It is, in fact, the case that Australia is one of the most urbanised countries in the world. About three-quarters of the people live in an urban environment. The mythology of the wide brown land is known to us all, but the reality of life in modern Australia is that three-quarters of us live in an urban context. To that extent we should always be concerned—I think quite properly, as the member for Ipswich pointed out—that our urban environments are the best that they can be. This bill does a number of things to assist with ensuring that not only is development appropriate but also that development occurs in an appropriate time frame. In providing for the ability to issue directions to not only make a particular decision but also actually make a decision in the first place, I believe that those intervention powers that are introduced by this bill will help drive and reinstate a culture of decision making within the IDAS process. In terms of the feedback that we are provided with about the IDAS process, it is the case that we need to refocus those efforts towards actual decision making rather than process in the first place. Out of a set of circumstances that industry would require—or anyone would require—of a development system, the three options are that the answer is, yes, no, and then finally, maybe. Out of those the maybe option is the worst option. What everyone prefers is that it is actually a decision in the first place that is either yes or no. In that regard, the direction powers to get on and make a decision, I hope, will not have to be exercised every day of the week, because I hope that they will, in fact, build a culture of proper decision making among agencies. I readily acknowledge the role that state agencies have to play in that regard. The state planning regulatory provisions do a number of things. Most notably, they provide for a framework for the rollout of the regional plans in other parts of the state. The member for Barron River, who is in the chair at the moment, spoke earlier about the FNQ 2025 Statutory Regional Plan. I share his enthusiasm for it. I also share the utter need to roll out statutory regional plans in those parts of the state that are experiencing the sort of growth that is occurring in the far north. We can look at the census data that was released during the last sitting of the parliament as backing up the sort of statistics that the member for Barron River provided in his address to the parliament in support of this bill. I, too, believe that the far north Queensland regional plan will represent the best practice planning that the South East 3176 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 06 Sep 2007

Queensland Regional Plan represents, and that is statutory planning on a regional basis with the force of law, ultimately underpinned by an infrastructure rollout that ensures that we get well-planned and well-ordered development that protects the amenity and the environment that, in fact, is attracting the investment and the people to that area in the first place. When it comes to the far north, there is much to protect, there is much to enhance, there is much to savour and there is much growth to guide. The growth and the prosperity that is occurring in that area requires our attention. I think that the rollout of statutory regional plans in other parts of the state will form a key part of the way in which our planning system will evolve. They also, underneath the state government planning regulatory provisions, provide for the ability for master planning in areas. In essence, that will ensure that the time between the making of a plan and when construction can start on site can be reduced, that it can be done in an orderly way that drives the identification and the incorporation of state interests to the front end of that planning process, and that can only assist in making sure that the plans that are put in place are master planned areas that ensure that the land supply pipeline flows as smoothly as possible. In that regard, I believe ultimately the provision of master planning within the IDAS framework will ensure that land supply can be sequenced into the market in a timely manner to ensure that, to the extent that land supply affects housing affordability, we can drive that issue at its core. Furthermore, there is a key election commitment in relation to infrastructure charges. Infrastructure charges could form a debate in themselves that would be of the same length of the debate that we have had on this bill today and yesterday. In that regard, it is worth pointing out that we are implementing our election commitment to ensure that there is an ability to review the way in which an infrastructure charging schedule or an infrastructure charges regime under a prior infrastructure plan can be reviewed to ensure that the competition authority, with set time limits, can oversee and overlook any particular infrastructure charges regime. That is an appropriate and welcome innovation in this bill. Furthermore, the application in an individual circumstance will be reviewed by the Building and Development Tribunal, which is another important reform that goes to one of the other aspects that was identified through the consultation on the IPA, and that is that it is an all-or-nothing dispute resolution process. You are either in the Planning and Environment Court with QCs at 10 paces or you are not. There needs to be access to a different level of dispute resolution before reaching that stage. We achieve that access for infrastructure charges through the Building and Development Tribunal. I believe that the Urban Land Development Authority Bill will lead to significant development opportunities in many urban parts of Queensland. As we witness the sea change and tree change phenomenon, as we witness the sort of growth and prosperity in this state that we have, and as we witness demographic change, as a government we need to ensure that we have a planning system that is able to pick up those challenges, that is able to ensure that those planning challenges are factored quickly into decision making and that the sort of growth and prosperity that we have enjoyed because of the nature of Queensland is, in fact, protected and guided well into the future. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (4.30 pm), in reply: I thank all who have spoken in this debate for their contribution to what I believe is a very important bill before the parliament. I will state from the outset in my summing-up the government’s purpose in bringing this legislation before the House. As outlined by the member for Mudgeeraba, in the lead-up to the 2006 election we took the very strong view that housing affordability was an emerging issue that the state had to pay attention to and that we had to identify those areas within our own policy and legislative frameworks where we could have some influence on the cost of housing. As outlined by other speakers, we do not for one minute believe that the state government on its own can solve the complexity of market forces and the other factors that affect housing affordability; we believe that it is something that requires the full attention of all levels of government—local, state and federal—as well as the operation of macro-economic policy as set by the Governor of the Board of the Reserve Bank in relation to interest rates. However, there are areas that the state government can influence. We took considerable advice from people who work in the industry: from developers, planners and those who have experience in operating under the existing legislation, including local governments and the LGAQ. The consensus that emerged out of those discussions was that there are three areas in which the government can have an effect on the cost of housing: firstly, the issue of land supply; secondly, the issue of infrastructure charging; and, thirdly, the issue of holding costs. Each one of these areas can have an effect on the ultimate cost of the house. Clearly, if land supply does not match land demand, then prices will rise. Clearly, if infrastructure charging is not imposed in a way that is fair and equitable and has some certainty, then those costs are added to the final cost of the house, which developers pass on to purchasers, and we need to ensure that we are monitoring and enforcing reasonable infrastructure charges. There are now such wild differences between the infrastructure charges by different local government areas that it is very difficult to have confidence that these charging regimes are in fact being operated in the way that they were meant to. 06 Sep 2007 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 3177

In the area of holding costs, it does not take a rocket scientist to realise that as long as a developer has to hold land while they are going through a protracted development approval process, then all of the holding costs on the finances that underpin that land will eventually find their way into the cost of the home. Anything that we can do to expedite the planning process in a general sense is also important. Therefore, we see before the House a bill which addresses land supply, particularly bringing land that is within the proprietary of the Crown to market as quickly as possible through the Urban Land Development Authority, a bill that imposes a new monitoring and enforcement regime around infrastructure charging and various changes to the IPA that can expedite approvals wherever appropriate and possible to minimise holding costs. I thank the opposition for its support of the bill, but I have to remark on the fact that it demonstrated its support for the bill by having every single one of its members speak against the bill. It is a new tactic, it seems. Let me address some of the issues that were raised by a number of speakers in support of but opposed to the bill. Firstly, in relation to the claim that this bill includes a new tax on property, I say—as others have—that this is simply not true. I draw the attention of the shadow minister to the fact that state infrastructure charges have been part of the planning regime in Queensland since 2004 when it was first mooted in the first draft of the South East Queensland Regional Plan. These state infrastructure charges do not apply in all developments; they only apply in master planned communities. What is new in this bill is certain provisions that make sure that there is a new level of certainty about the charges that can be levied and the circumstances in which they can be levied and it provides transparency for the development community. I would have thought that those opposite would welcome that. I am sure that throughout the consideration in detail stage we will hear more quotes from the member for Moggill, such as those we heard in his speech and the speech of others on his side, from the submissions to the government from the Property Council and the UDIA. I would caution the member for Moggill that the mere fact that the Property Council of Queensland asserts something does not make it true. That is certainly the case in relation to state infrastructure charges. A number of speakers—the member for Warrego distinguished himself the most—asserted that the government was only putting in place this new Urban Land Development Authority because we were motivated by a desire to appoint unionists to the board. There was an overwhelming terror and fear spreading through the ranks of the coalition that people from unions might end up as members of the board. The member for Clayfield sought my personal guarantee that this would not be the case. I can absolutely guarantee to the member for Clayfield and others on his side of the parliament that every member of this board will be appointed on merit. Can I or will I guarantee that someone who is, or has ever been, or might be, or has spoken to someone who is a member of a union will be barred from being on this committee? No, they will not. Do members know why? That would be a fundamental breach of their human rights. We in this country are signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and one of the fundamental tenets of it is freedom of association. There was a time in this country when the Liberal Party of Australia believed in human rights. There were a number of criticisms that the provisions of this bill would not address other issues that could contribute to housing affordability. Of course it does not. It only purports to do the things that it sets out to do. It is not a bill that deals with other areas of government activity, although in the last six months there are substantial areas where we have given tax relief: from 1 January this year we lifted the threshold in relation to first homebuyers’ stamp duty responsibilities, which eliminated a number of first homebuyers from the stamp duty net; we have seen further adjustments to land tax provisions in this year’s budget, as we did in last year’s budget, so that small investors in the housing market—often an important part of the market for those who are renting—can still be investors in that part of the market; and in this year’s budget we made a very substantial commitment of half a billion dollars into the public housing budget. While that half a billion dollars is a very important part of building our housing stock, it will do little more than replace the money that has been ripped out of the public housing budget by the federal government over the past 10 years. The member for Moggill claimed to have more than 20 submissions from senior people in the property market. However, they all asked to be anonymous. I will therefore treat their submissions with a grain of salt. In my experience, senior people in the property market have no concerns about putting their views forward and nor should they. I welcome their views. I have had many meetings with them about this issue. Did they get everything in this bill that they wanted? No, they did not. What we see in the submissions is some parts of the development community saying that the government has not gone far enough. We equally see some members of the environment community saying that the government has gone too far. In my view, that is probably a pretty good indication that we have the balance right. What we did see from the opposition was what I thought was a policy vacuum but was identified by the member for Mudgeeraba for what it is and that is policy envy. If those opposite did not think of it themselves they find it very difficult to support. As I said, the member for Moggill went through numerous areas where he claimed he was finding it hard to support the bill. The member for Warrego did acknowledge that urban land development authorities had been successful in other places. The 3178 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 06 Sep 2007 member for Robina received a submission from his friends at the Property Council. What does he want? He wants to delay the delivery of affordable housing to Queenslanders. Why? He wants to consult with the property industry further. I advise the member for Robina and others that I have received all of their submissions and find nothing persuasive in them. The member for Kawana says that we are not charging enough for infrastructure and we should be raising the charges. The member for Maroochydore wants more iconic legislation and for the state to intervene as the local authority has failed to listen to the people. The member for Gregory, on the other hand, loves this bill so much that he nominated other sites in his electorate of Gregory for activity by the urban land authority. The member for Gladstone reminded us all that she is disappointed, as we are, with the federal government backing out of funding of affordable housing. That was wrapped up by the member for Clayfield who was obviously confused and has no idea what he wants. Mrs Sullivan: He wants to be the leader! Ms BLIGH: Apart from wanting to be the leader. He complained first about the policy being too short and then complained that the bill was too long and produced too much red tape. The member for Currumbin distinguished herself by supporting the bill by viciously attacking it. If members are confused about what position the coalition is taking on this bill they can be forgiven, because I think they are confused. Probably one of the most extraordinary allegations that permeated the speeches from the members of the opposition was the allegation that this bill is being rushed through the parliament with enormous and undue haste. I remind members, firstly, that legislation along these lines was an election commitment in 2006. There was one full workshop held with the relevant stakeholders in December last year. I have had two separate presentations to the development industry and the Local Government Association of Queensland over the last six to seven months and then the intention of the legislation was announced. All stakeholders were invited in for a full presentation on it. I then addressed a UDIA lunch and presented it in full. When the bill was available, a three-hour workshop was held on it before it was introduced into the House, so before it came into the parliament. It was introduced into the parliament 14 days ago. What do the standing orders of this parliament provide for in relation to the amount of time a bill should lay upon the table of the House? It is 14 days. So this bill has laid upon the table of the House for exactly the amount of time that the standing orders provide for. It is those two weeks in which shadow ministers and other members of the coalition who have an interest in the bill are supposed to spend some time doing some work. I can only apologise to them if it is a big bill with a lot of pages that taxes them. A government member: No pictures. Ms BLIGH: There were no pictures and no illustrations, but any suggestion that there has been any undue haste about this bill really is not borne out by the facts. This is the normal process of legislation and I expect members opposite should be able to keep up. Let me address two of the substantive issues that I know will be raised further in the debate and which were raised earlier. The first one is a reasonable question to be asking and I am happy to advise further; it is the question of appeal rights. It is not a matter that this government takes lightly. It is true that land which comes within the jurisdiction of the Urban Land Development Authority will not have the same appeal rights for all parties as if it were not in that jurisdiction. The Urban Land Development Authority is provided with a mandate to accelerate development within urban development areas. The powers afforded to the authority will ensure that development time frames are not obstructed by lengthy litigation which is often undertaken only to frustrate the process. The government has not taken this decision lightly, as I said, and we have built in substantial consultation mechanisms to ensure that the authority gets the development scheme right in the first place. Clause 25 of the bill deals with this and mandates 30 business days for a submission period. However, once the development scheme is finalised, the removal of appeals will ensure that implementation of the scheme is not bogged down by delays. Additional protection is provided to the community through clause 56, which prevents the ULDA from granting an approval which is inconsistent with the development scheme which has been adopted. Can I also say that the bill does provide a ministerial power to amend a submitted scheme at an affected owner’s request. So a property owner who has land either within the scope of the Urban Land Development Authority or that is immediately adjacent to it and who is concerned about the proposed development plan does have a right to take that matter to the minister. The minister must hear it and does have the power to amend the scheme if the affected owner’s request warrants it. I suggest to the member for Moggill before he goes too far down this track that, if he really reads the submissions from the property development industry in relation to this issue particularly, he will see that what they are proposing are appeal rights for applicants—that is, appeal rights for developers. Dr Flegg: That is who they represent. Ms BLIGH: Yes, that is right. 06 Sep 2007 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 3179

Dr Flegg interjected. Ms BLIGH: Well, frankly, I do not think it should be beyond the power of the Property Council to contemplate the rights of landowners. I am surprised to see that their submission does not mention the rights of affected landowners at all because of course they do not want that. They want to be able to frustrate the process themselves where it is in their interests to do so, but they do not want an affected property owner to have the same right to do so. That is hardly surprising. Is this bill without precedent? No, it is not. There are other similar land development authorities in other states of Australia that have very similar provisions. In fact, those land development authorities in some circumstances have the power for the compulsory acquisition of land from private owners which this bill does not. This bill is not without precedent in Queensland either. One model for the bill is in fact the South Bank Corporation. When did the South Bank Corporation Act become an act of this parliament? It became an act of this parliament in 1989. It is legislation of the Queensland coalition. It provides for no appeal rights. So the right of appeal to the minister that is provided here for the affected landowners actually goes beyond what the coalition did when it was on this side of the House. Similarly, in state development areas there is no right of appeal. So I would just say to the member for Moggill before he gets too far on this course and too high and mighty on it that his party has its own track record in this area. This is done for a very simple and very important reason. That is, so these particularly strategic development areas can be moved to market as quickly as possible. Members cannot on the one hand say they want to increase land supply and on the other hand say they want to put in place a range of processes that will frustrate land getting to market. The only other issue of substance which I know will also be raised during debate on the clauses is the question of whether the LGAQ should be nominating members to this board. I do accept that people who have had experience in local government have something very valuable to contribute to the operation of this board, and that is precisely why the provisions in the bill specifically mention people who have a demonstrated local government background and expertise. In fact the bill requires that at least two such people must be on this board. This is a statutory authority of the Queensland state government and we will be making the final decisions in relation to the suitable members of the board. As with any board, we need to make sure we get the right mix of people. We need to make sure that there is appropriate regional representation and that people bring a broad range to the mix. So we will be making those decisions. I note that the member for Moggill probably has a different view. All in all, as I said, I do thank members for supporting the bill. I find it extraordinary that the coalition supported it by speaking consistently against it. I can only assume from the contributions of coalition members on this, as in so many other areas, that their policy solution is to reduce the cost of housing by doing absolutely nothing. What we did not hear today were any alternatives, any different sorts of solutions or any policy responses that might have given us some cause to adopt a different approach. I look forward to the debate on the clauses. I commend the bill to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wettenhall): Minister, are there any further explanatory notes to amendments to be tabled? Ms BLIGH: No. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Clause 3— Dr FLEGG (4.47 pm): Clause 3 deals with the purpose of the bill, and a great deal has been said in this quite lengthy debate about achieving the purpose of the bill—that is, improving housing affordability. I note that the member for Mudgeeraba listed three things that she believes are impacting on housing affordability. She did actually miss a few minor things like population growth but she identified land supply, taxes and delays in approvals as her three reasons. I would like some feedback from the minister about what work she and her government have done to determine that the measures contained in this bill will in fact impact on housing affordability. What sort of cost-benefit analysis, for want of a better term, has been put in place? Most of the extensive number of submissions that I had on this bill raised the issue of how effective the measures contained in this bill would be for improving housing affordability. I would like to hear the minister’s estimate of how many additional blocks of land or residences will be placed on the market in Queensland as a result of the provisions of this bill? 3180 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 06 Sep 2007

As the member for Mudgeeraba and others identified, one of the factors in housing affordability is scarcity. To be effective the bill has to deliver additional stock that would otherwise not be coming to market. As the minister told us in her summing-up, she spent a lot of time working on this bill so no doubt she will have an answer to the question of how many additional residences and blocks of land this bill will provide for. Similarly, the other area which has come under the scope of the bill is time savings and cost savings. Again, in the work-up to the bill I hope that the minister can give us some researched indication of what the cost reduction on properties will be. They are two of the key elements that will determine whether the measures she is putting forward in this bill will have a beneficial effect on housing affordability. Also, in the work-up to this bill I would like some sort of indication from the minister of what she believes the time delays currently being experienced are. How significant and how lengthy are the time delays, particularly for the development areas that are named in the bill but perhaps more widely as well? And what sort of time reduction does the minister anticipate the measures in the bill will deliver for us? Clause 3(2)(e) refers to housing for low- and moderate-income households. I think every member who has spoken in this debate—and contrary to some of the minister’s summing-up remarks, that certainly includes those in the coalition—understands all too well the housing stress that we are seeing on low- and moderate-income families, particularly in a state where a combination of factors has resulted for practical purposes in property prices doubling within the last five years. In relation to clause 3(2)(e), I would be particularly keen to hear what models of housing the minister believes are contained in the planning instruments of this bill that will provide affordable housing to the low- to moderate-income households. There are a number of other influences on housing affordability in Queensland which have not had the same airing during this debate as the ones I have just mentioned but nevertheless are important and have been raised with me, interestingly, by people from the private sector predominantly. One issue is that of land banking. We have introduced a South East Queensland Regional Plan which in effect says ‘only in this footprint can you develop’, but within that footprint there is a vastly diminished number of large landowners, meaning particularly the development community. So we have gone from potentially being able to apply for development right across south-east Queensland in the case of this plan to a more limited area within the footprint. There are therefore significantly fewer large developers with land banks. Two issues arise there that I would like some comment on. Will the measures contained in the bill cause some of the large landowners, particularly on the coasts, to bring forward their land banks into development? There are large land banks in certain parts of the south-east corner in the urban footprint that are not coming on to the market very quickly. The other issue that has been raised is that we now have relatively few developers with large developable holdings within the urban footprint—a lesser number of holdings and a lesser number of developers. Therefore, there is less competition and less pressure. For argument’s sake, on the Sunshine Coast or the Gold Coast—I am not targeting any particular companies—within the urban footprint area you may be reduced to two or three companies that have large holdings. If you had eight or 10 companies, there would be a lot more incentive for that land to be brought on in multiple developments. So are there any measures contained in the bill that would enhance the competitiveness and cause some of the land banking to be put forward for development? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. Given the range of factors that contribute to the cost of housing, I am sure the member and others will understand that the estimate of what sorts of savings might be realisable if all of the provisions of this bill worked in concert with each other obviously differs from one place to another. However, I can advise the member in relation to infrastructure charges from an example that comes from the Pine Rivers council. Pine Rivers is making infrastructure charges for everything from library books to light bulbs or to lights. This is now being charged for in the conditioning of applications. This means that some areas like Pine Rivers charge as much as $44,000 per lot. That goes straight onto the cost to the homebuyer. A government member: Some of them are even higher than that. Ms BLIGH: Yes, we have seen some as high as $50,000, and the $50,000 example that I gave was increased overnight with the beginning of the new financial year from a previous $6,000 a lot. So going from $6,000 to $50,000 a lot. Similarly, another example is from my own electorate, which is an inner-city area. Obviously the holding costs will differ from developer to developer depending on the financial arrangements they have for that block of land and others, what bank they are with and all sorts of other factors. But I will provide an estimate in relation to a block in my electorate in the inner city on the south side. For a development that involved 112 units, the assessment time for the development application was 21 months. The cost incurred by the developer for those 21 months was $1.6 million. The total holding cost per unit was $14,000. 06 Sep 2007 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 3181

A different example comes from the north coast and a development of 396 attached dwellings, an assessment period of two years and three months for the development application. Holding costs incurred were $1.5 million at a cost of $3,787 per dwelling. Those assessment times under IPA should be coming in at about six to nine months. For them to blow out to two years and two years and three months is simply unacceptable, and we will certainly be monitoring those. Just on those examples, if infrastructure charges went from $50,000 back to $6,000, that is a saving of $44,000. We might see the holding costs that were incurred above and beyond what was required come down by another $14,000. Depending on the factors that influence any particular development, we could be talking about quite sizeable savings. I do not for one minute pretend that that would be the saving on every single house or that such a thing could be uniformly guaranteed, but I think it does give a taste of what could be achieved in some areas if we saw particularly some local governments and state government departments which are delaying these things lift their game considerably. I can assure the member and other members of the House that we will be monitoring the turnaround times of these development applications. I am certainly giving some thought as to how we could maybe make more public those areas where we are seeing councils do a good job, and they should be commended for that, and also exposing those councils that are, frankly, taking far too long. If those opposite really care about how long it takes councils to adequately assess development applications, then they should be supporting amalgamations of councils because that is what will aggregate their capacity and give them the capacity to employ town-planners, to keep those town- planners and pay them properly. So there is a little bit of hypocrisy coming in here. In relation to the number of dwellings, obviously there are a number of components to this bill. There is the Urban Land Development Authority and then there are all of the IPA changes. The IPA changes will affect every single development application potentially. I do not for one minute pretend that I can forecast into the future what every single developer will be doing, but in relation to the five sites that we have identified I should say that those five sites for the Urban Land Development Authority are just the first five. I thought it was very important when we were setting up and establishing a new authority that they could hit the ground running. I do not want them to spend three months identifying what they should be doing. So we have identified those five sites. Between them those sites have a total land area of 700 hectares which could accommodate dwellings for 20,000 residents. I do not think that is a bad start, but I do not for one minute want it to stop there. That is really just the beginning. If we can take that kind of demand into the marketplace as quickly as possible, then I think it is a very worthy thing. Dr FLEGG: From the examples the minister gave, as much as she might hate to admit it, she confirmed what most members on this side have said—and that is that the present planning arrangements are something of a shambles, that this measure is because of the failure of many of the present arrangements. The minister made reference in her answer to reducing council infrastructure charges from $50,000 to $6,000. Would the minister care to say a bit more about that? I am sure people purchasing property would be fairly happy, but I did not pick up anything in the bill that would lead to that sort of reduction in council infrastructure charges. Perhaps the minister could comment further on the reduction of council infrastructure charges as she intimated and what she sees would be the mechanism for reducing those council infrastructure charges. Ms BLIGH: Before answering the member, for the benefit of the House I table the explanatory notes for the amendments that will be moved in my name. I apologise as I thought they had been circulated earlier. Tabled paper: Explanatory Notes for amendments to be moved during consideration in detail for the Urban Land Development Authority Bill. In relation to the member’s question, what we see in infrastructure charging, as I outlined earlier, is wild variation. Obviously there are very legitimate reasons why something might cost more in one council area than in another—it could be to do with geography or with integration with other systems for water and sewerage et cetera; it could depend on whether it is a greenfield site or whether it is isolated from trunk infrastructure et cetera. In relation to the provision of basic services such as sewerage, on average we see a difference between $2,300 and $1,500 per lot across different council areas. The development community have quite rightly said that they are starting to lose confidence that these infrastructure charges have any rigour to them and whether they do in fact relate in any way to the cost of providing the infrastructure, and they have no way of finding out. In relation to the current arrangements, a developer who believes that there is a lack of fairness or a lack of rigour in the infrastructure charges that they are being slugged with has, in the absence of a prior infrastructure plan being approved, no mechanism by which they can question them and no third party to whom they can appeal or take a complaint. The bill sets up a review and complaint mechanism. I think that is a very important part of putting some rigour back into the way councils develop this. I hope we do not see many complaints. I hope that councils understand that the way they have set infrastructure charges up until now, which has basically 3182 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 06 Sep 2007 been Rafferty’s rules, is over. We gave them the opportunity to behave responsibly. We gave them the opportunity to do this in a fair and reasonable way. Those who have abused it are now going to be exposed to scrutiny, and developers who believe that they are being treated unfairly will have an opportunity, through the Building Services Tribunal, to have a complaint heard and deliberated on. I have every confidence that we will see a very serious moderation in relation to some of the more stupid and ridiculous things. I emphasise that many local governments are doing the right thing in many cases, but there has been a rapid and serious escalation in these costs. Some of the things that developers are being charged for as infrastructure charges, which should be about infrastructure on basic services—the sorts of services that you cannot sell a house without: water, sewerage and that sort of thing—are library books. Frankly, they are the sorts of things that ratepayers should pay for through their rates. They are not infrastructure charges and they should not be included in the infrastructure schedule. Homebuyers pay for that through their rates. I do not think there is any disagreement about that, but that is the sort of thing that is happening. Again, I do not think there is any point having theoretical or hypothetical discussions about exactly what will change in every single household lot. But I think it is important to put some rigour and enforcement around these charges because they are charges that are passed directly on to the homebuyer. Clause 3, as read, agreed to. Clauses 4 and 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6— Dr FLEGG (5.04 pm): Clause 6 is the clause that the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee and others have commented contravenes fundamental legislative principles, particularly in relation to the so- called Henry VIII clause of bypassing the parliament and particularly in relation to the issue of differentiation of categories within the act. I ask the minister to comment on that concern that has been raised in relation to fundamental legislative principles. Ms BLIGH: I advise the member that local government planning schemes can do the same thing. This is simply making the operation of the Urban Land Development Authority consistent with the powers of local government planning schemes. Clause 6, as read, agreed to. Clauses 7 to 9, as read, agreed to. Clause 10— Dr FLEGG (5.06 pm): Clause 10(3) reads— A failure to comply with this section does not invalidate or otherwise affect the regulation. Clause 10(3) contradicts the first two parts of that clause and cancels out the need for the minister to table relevant documents pertaining to the regulation being tabled. This could lead to important documentation, which would provide useful background information and which would assist in the decision making by members of parliament, being made unavailable for consideration. In essence—and I looked at this clause at some length—it requires the minister to table his or her documents as part of his or her regulation but then the third part of the clause effectively excuses the minister if he or she fails to do so. I think this would raise considerable concern because, in effect, parts (1) and (2) ought to stand. The relevant planning minister should be required to table all the matters relevant and there should be an issue if there is a failure to comply. Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member. I am advised that this is a relatively standard provision in other legislation in relation to regulations. What it simply provides for is that the regulatory effect is not nullified simply by an omission to table documents. The documents, while desirable, are not part of the regulatory effect, and this is to ensure that the regulatory effect can continue regardless of whether the documentation is provided for in full. As I said, I am advised that it is a relatively standard provision in many other acts. Dr FLEGG: That may be the case but this act has enormous powers and, by the nature of the act, has ramifications that potentially affect every householder in Queensland in one way or another. When documents get a little bit controversial, given the protection part (3) gives the relevant minister at the time, one could imagine that it will be a significant temptation not to table the more sensitive documents. It is our view that clause 10(3) should not be in there. Clause 10, as read, agreed to. Clauses 11 to 16, as read, agreed to. 06 Sep 2007 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 3183

Clause 17— Dr FLEGG (5.09 pm): Clause 17 relates to outstanding UDA development applications. Where a development application is in train at the point of revocation of a UDA—in other words, when the UDA passes back to the control of the local council—although it is appropriate that the DA must continue to be decided—and I think there would be agreement on both sides of the House about that—there should be a reinstatement of appeal rights under IPA for refusal and in respect of conditions. Basically, when these planning areas revert back to the local authority there is no sound reason for those applications to then be differentiated from any other application before that local authority even though they are in train at the time. Our view is that they should, once they revert to the local authority, revert back to the conditions that apply to the local authority which would include appeal rights. Ms BLIGH: This is underpinned by the view that it would be inequitable for a developer to have enjoyed the benefits of being in this scheme and then not have some of the burdens, if you like, simply by jumping outside of the scheme. I do not anticipate that this will be something that we will see very many circumstances of, but I do think it is important to understand what motivated the design of that clause. Clause 17, as read, agreed to. Clauses 18 to 23, as read, agreed to. Clause 24— Dr FLEGG (5.11 pm): Clause 24 relates to consultation about proposed development schemes and states— ... before preparing the proposed scheme, the authority— (a) must consult, in the way it considers appropriate, with the relevant local government; and (b) must make reasonable endeavours to consult, in the way it considers appropriate, with any of the following the authority considers will be likely to be affected by a development scheme for the area— (i) a government entity or GOC; (ii) another person or entity. Whilst it is broad ranging as to who may be consulted, it is hardly prescriptive. This clause allows an enormous amount of discretion on the part of the authority as to whom and how it consults. Again I come back to something that I am going to come back to repeatedly here today, and that is that this bill takes away a lot of existing rights and it potentially impacts people in every corner of this state. It is our view that the requirements upon the authority to consult should have been much more prescriptive and that people with a relevant interest in the area being planned should have a right to expect that they are part of the consultation process rather than a highly non-descriptive condition placed on the authority in that it can basically pick and choose who it wants to consult. Ms BLIGH: The government’s view is that this clause specifically requires the new authority to consult with the relevant local government authority, and frankly I think that makes good sense. I talked earlier about some of the provisions in the South Bank act. I think South Bank is a very good example of what can be achieved when we have a specific piece of government owned land that is a very large piece of property where the state government and the local council—governments of different political persuasions at both the local and state level—have worked cooperatively to develop very appropriately what is, I think, one of the jewels in the crown of our city. I certainly see local governments as very strong partners in the activities of this authority and will expect that of the chair and the board. But it is not just a question of my expectation; this clause requires it. So in my view it is very appropriate and I am not entirely sure what it is that the member for Moggill is distressed about. Clause 24, as read, agreed to. Clauses 25 to 27, as read, agreed to. Clause 28— Dr FLEGG (5.14 pm): Clause 28 relates to the amendment of a proposed scheme. If the authority considers an amendment made after the consideration of submissions significantly changes the proposed scheme, the authority must recomply with section 25 relating to public notification and section 27 relating to consideration of submissions. Minister, in our view this clause is open-ended and leaves the definition of ‘significant changes’ entirely up to the authority. Once again, I come back to remarks that I have been making all the way along here about the extraordinary powers of this body and also its potential to affect such a vast number of people in Queensland. Without any definition of ‘significant change’, it leaves open whether the authority will view it as necessary to go back to public notification or consideration of submissions. In our view this should have been much more tightly worded to give greater protection to communities so that what reasonable people would consider to be a significant change will in fact be forced back to public notification and consideration. Conceivably, the authority could almost ignore these requirements to go back to public notification or consideration of submissions entirely if it chose a suitable definition of ‘significant changes’. 3184 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 06 Sep 2007

Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for his observations. I think it is important in debating a bill like this to remember that the authority actually has to operate in the real world. This authority will be a failure if it does not build good relationships with local government, if it does not build good relationships with stakeholders and if it does not act in a way that is professional and complies with its legislation. This clause requires the authority comprised of people of significant seniority and professional background and experience to apply themselves to the question of whether a proposed amendment significantly changes the proposed scheme. In doing so, I would expect them to use the commonly understood meaning of the word ‘significant’—that is, something beyond the trivial, arguably something which equates to a major change in that the man in the street would believe it to be a significant change. If that is not something that meets community standards, I would expect that that would become pretty obvious pretty quickly. I would suggest to the member for Moggill that if he had some better way of describing the point at which that should be triggered then he should have brought forward an amendment to the clause. Clause 28, as read, agreed to. Clause 29, as read, agreed to. Clause 30— Dr FLEGG (5.18 pm): Clause 30 relates to notice of a submitted scheme. Part (c) of this clause allows the submitter if an affected owner for the relevant urban development area within 20 business days after receiving notice to ask the minister to amend the scheme to protect the owner’s interests. This is a clause that considerably concerns those of us on this side of the House. This one worries us. For a start, 20 business days is a reasonably short period. On this side of the House we have accepted to a significant extent that the reason the government is introducing parts of this bill is in order to speed things up, but there is a counterbalance to that and that is the loss of people’s rights which currently exist. The minister could imagine the enormous range of possibilities that would be opened up under this bill with an authority that has power to alter zonings, height restrictions, densities, roads and infrastructure. There is an enormous number of people who could be positively impacted upon and could benefit from this—and the minister probably will not hear from them—but there is also an equally enormous number of people who could be negatively impacted upon by any one of a large array of decisions that could be made here. Their only avenue under this clause is to write to the minister who ultimately has been responsible for this entire process himself. So there is no independent appeal. We accept the fact that there should not be appeal processes that allow vexatious people, business competitors and so forth, to delay applications, but there will be many small people—home owners and families—whose homes will be affected under the provisions of this bill who do not have any right of appeal. I want to highlight the fact that, in our view, there should have been more right of appeal, particularly under this clause. I also note that there is no compensation payable because it is a state planning implement and it is not normal for compensation to be paid. I do not want to go into a lot of examples because I am sure that the minister knows far more about the bill than I do. People’s homes could be affected by infrastructure being placed next to them, by a change in zonings or by a change in height restrictions next to them. There could be an enormous array of affected people and the only avenue left open under this clause is to write to the minister who basically did it to them, anyway. Our view is that there should have been at least some sort of limited right of an independent appeal for home owners directly affected. In some cases where the impact is severe there should be some mechanism by which compensation could have at least been considered. Ms BLIGH: This provision does provide a right to an affected landowner to make an application to the minister to amend a scheme so that any disadvantageous effect on them can be ameliorated. I would say a couple of things in relation to this. Firstly in relation to the time, 20 business days is a month. I do think it is important that we keep a very strong focus in this legislation on the need to keep this process moving because it is about land supply and it is about getting to market. In relation to the member’s assertions that it is effectively Caesar judging Caesar, I say that it is actually the authority that will determine the planning scheme and it is the minister judging the authority. As the member would be aware, under the IPA the minister for local government has a call-in power. That call-in actually overrides any other appeal rights that a party, whether it is an affected landowner or a third-party applicant, may have. The exercise of those powers does have to be done very cautiously. While these powers are not identical in terms of their significance, they could equate in some ways to the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act. Frankly, ministers of all political persuasions over a long period have been careful and cautious in the application of that legislation. Dr Flegg: Except Russ Hinze. Ms BLIGH: Russ Hinze may well have been an exception to the rule. The member is right, there are matters here which do go to the heart of landowners’ private property. I thought it was very important that there should be another port of call for people to talk about those issues that are very local issues. I would expect, apart from all of the provisions of this bill, as I said, that this will have to operate in the real 06 Sep 2007 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 3185 world. Ministers will understand that there will be political issues that have to be taken into account—and I mean political in the small ‘p’ sense. There will also be people issues to be dealt with. That is why it is a reasonable halfway house, in terms of not providing so much latitude and there is scope for endless delays in the process, to provide for some protections to legitimately affected landowners. Dr FLEGG: I do understand and appreciate what the minister is saying. It is Caesar judging Caesar for reasons that will become apparent later in the clauses and the minister has pretty much appointed this authority. In my view, it is not a sufficiently legitimate excuse to say that possibly some of these powers under certain circumstances might exist under the IPA. This is a vastly different animal to the IPA and many of the protections that landowners enjoy under the IPA are swept aside with the provisions of this bill. It is a far more wide-ranging and intrusive bill. It is an authority and a method of planning that is going to intrude on the lives of many tens of thousands of Queenslanders. I believe quite strongly that the sheer scope of it, the sheer power of it and the extent to which existing rights under existing planning arrangements will largely be swept aside would have justified at least a limited independent appeal process and at least the capacity to consider compensation in some of the worst affected cases. Ms BLIGH: I do not want to prolong the debate on this clause, but I would just draw to the member’s attention in relation to any assertion that rights are being swept aside that in comparable circumstances in local government there is no right of appeal against a planning scheme. So, in fact, what this does is give individual landowners a right to appeal to the minister that they would not have otherwise had. Clause 30, as read, agreed to. Clause 31— Dr FLEGG (5.25 pm): Clause 31 relates to the ministerial power to amend a submitted scheme at the affected owner’s request. It allows the minister to amend the submitted scheme in a way that the minister considers appropriate to protect an affected owner’s interests if the owner requested an amendment within the 20 days as a follow-up from the previous one when an aggrieved owner approaches the minister within his 20 business day limitation of receiving it and the amendment is made within 40 business days of the minister receiving the submitted scheme. This clause provides the minister with the power to make changes to the plan without consultation with the wider community or with the wider community’s interests in mind. It is specific for the interests of the person complaining to the minister. The clause also allows the minister to make amendments at his own discretion and with his own interpretation of the owner’s interests. This clause really is an extraordinarily wide power for a bill where we are essentially dealing with rules that govern people’s homes. Obviously there needs to be that redress and appeal for property owners who may be aggrieved for one reason or another. This is a very specific clause that does not require the minister to take into account broader concerns when he makes changes, nor does it require him to consult prior to making those changes. Ms BLIGH: I draw the member’s attention to the clause that follows the one about which he just spoke, which provides that, where the minister considers an amendment in these circumstances to significantly change the scheme, then the minister must give the authority a written direction to recomply with sections 25, 27, 28 and 29, all of which require further consultation on such a change. Clause 31, as read, agreed to. Clause 32— Dr FLEGG (5.28 pm): Briefly, on clause 32, a direction to the authority to engage again in public notification and submissions, this clause is open ended, leaving the definition of ‘significant change’ to the discretion of the minister. This is a matter I raised in relation to one of the previous clauses and the issues are exactly the same as I raised there. So I will not belabour the point but I would like to record it again. Clause 32, as read, agreed to. Clause 33, as read, agreed to. Clause 34, as read, agreed to. Clauses 35 and 36— Dr FLEGG (5.29 pm): Clause 35 provides the following— (1) The Minister may, at the authority’s request, amend a development scheme if— (a) the amendment does not change the land use plan for the relevant urban development area; or (b) the amendment changes the land use plan—the Minister considers— (i) the amendment is necessary to ensure the implementation of the scheme complies with this Act; or (ii) there is a significant risk of serious environmental harm, within the meaning of the Environmental Protection Act ... (iii) the amendment corrects an error. 3186 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 06 Sep 2007

Clause 35(2) states— To remove any doubt, it is declared that an amendment mentioned in subsection (1)(b) may be made even if it is materially detrimental to someone’s interests. This clause provides the minister with the power to make significant changes to the urban development scheme without public or stakeholder consultation. However, it should be noted that clause 36 clarifies that an amendment of a development scheme by the minister does not take effect until it is approved under a regulation. The point we are seeking to make here is that, again, this is a pretty wide power to amend the scheme without any necessity for stakeholder consultation. Perhaps the minister would like to comment on that. Ms BLIGH: The amendment does not come into effect until it has been approved under a regulation. That means, like all regulations it is subject to the scrutiny of this parliament and it is subject to gazettal. So any suggestion that it can be done secretly does not bear scrutiny. Like all regulations, it is subject to debate in this parliament. Clauses 35 and 36, as read, agreed to. Clauses 37 and 38, as read, agreed to. Clause 39— Dr FLEGG (5.32 pm): Again I will not labour the point here because, in our view, this clause has a similar failing to an earlier clause. Subclause 3 of clause 39 contradicts the first two subsclauses. It cancels out the need for the minister to table relevant documents pertaining to the regulation being tabled. This could lead to important documentation that would provide useful background information and could assist members in decision making being omitted. This issue is similar to the one that I raised earlier. We do not believe that subclause (3) of clause 39 should be there. Clause 39, as read, agreed to. Clause 40, as read, agreed to. Clauses 41 to 53, as read, agreed to. Clause 54 (Notice of application)— Dr FLEGG (5.34 pm): I move the following amendment— 1 Clause 54 (Notice of application)— At page 41, lines 9 to 12— omit, insert— ‘submission period).’. Part (e) of this clause states— ... the making of a submission does not give rise to a right of appeal against a decision about the application. In our view, this is a fundamental clause. Under this clause people with a relevant interest, or a serious interest, who make a submission in relation to an application do not have the right to speak out in terms of their appeal process. This clause takes away the rights of the community to speak out. We seek to amend this clause by having it omitted. Ms BLIGH: In essence, for the opposition to achieve what it is seeking requires the moving of three amendments. I am going to make a number of points in relation to the entire range of amendments to clauses 54, 59 and 61, which all seek to reinsert an appeal right. Basically, this provision creates a right for persons to lodge submissions in respect of a UDA development application, but the amendment then creates a right of appeal if the Urban Land Development Authority approves the UDA development application. The appeal right being proposed by the coalition is limited to only those matters in the development scheme that are different from the council’s planning instrument. The rights of third parties are already protected in the bill, as I have outlined earlier, in a number of ways. Firstly, the authority is required to consult on the proposed development scheme before preparation. Persons can make submissions in respect of a proposed development scheme. Persons, or property owners affected, can make submissions to the minister within 20 days of the proposed development scheme and the minister can require changes to rectify any undue effects. The appeal right is purported to be limited to differences between the development scheme and the council’s planning scheme. In essence, the appeal right is an appeal against the making of the policy contained in the development scheme. As I said, this issue is addressed by the other provisions of the bill. If this parliament were to adopt this series of amendments and insert this appeal right, effectively we would be maintaining the status quo of the current planning approval system. So these amendments would nullify the purpose of the Urban Development Authority by preserving matters that are council 06 Sep 2007 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 3187 planning instruments that this legislation was in many cases designed to make significant changes to. So we cannot say, ‘The planning system is a shambles. It is delaying applications. It is causing an increase in costs’ but, when we come to a mechanism that streamlines all of that, seek to return, by this series of amendments, to the status quo. The government will not be supporting these amendments. Dr FLEGG: The minister needs to understand the difference between the existing local plan and the problems that are occurring in the development process with underresourced councils and all the rest. The local development plan has been put in place with consultation with the communities. It has been put in place over a period. It has been put in place with input from other locally elected representatives, community groups and environment groups. It is a major issue to override that existing plan with such wide, sweeping and unfettered powers. The opposition has tried very hard to be reasonable with these amendments and not extend this right of appeal any more than is necessary to protect the rights of citizens in Queensland—current rights that this bill extinguishes. That is why we have specified that they would have a right of appeal only for matters introduced under this scheme that differ, extend, or go further than current planning arrangements. I have stood up before many public meetings in my electorate in Moggill. I have no doubt that the Deputy Premier has stood up in front of many. Time and time again we have gone back to people about their local area plan. Often they are objecting to a development. Often they are objecting to the fact that infrastructure is not there to support that development. Some of these meetings are huge. It is one of the areas where there is still significant involvement of the community in decision making and in the political process. In other words, people care about their local planning. We accept many parts of this bill. But this bill takes away much of that local planning—it wipes it away. They are existing rights. People have made their decisions about where they are going to build their home based on the sort of community that has been planned there. They have elected local representatives to councils who stand up and fight for particular values that they have in that community. This planning arrangement can override that and can sweep those rights aside. Essentially what the government would do is thumb its nose at those communities and say, ‘If you don’t like it, write a letter to the minister’. That is not adequate for something as serious as this. Our belief is that this amendment is a very responsible amendment. It is as minimal as we could make it, but it does preserve existing rights for Queenslanders under a bill that, at the end of the day, can affect almost every home, unit, farm or commercial property in the state. We think communities deserve this protection. Mr JOHNSON: The member for Moggill has raised a very important issue. The minister made reference to the fact that it is 20 days. In real terms, 20 working days equates to four weeks. The issue is the power that the minister has as the signatory minister in overriding the local government. There has been much emphasis in recent weeks on the amalgamated councils and the roles they will play in making certain that these developments are right for the wider community. I believe that those people, as the elected representatives of the local people, are best qualified to know what is best for their community and the region in question. I know that we are talking about certain areas of Brisbane here and we are also talking about an area in Mackay, but the real fact of the matter is that the minister made mention in a previous response to the member for Moggill of the situation in relation to a council planning scheme. This is virtually a smack in the face for the council planning scheme or what the councils are aiming for if they are not going to have a say in the matter. I ask the minister to elaborate further on that. Ms BLIGH: Let me just say two things in relation to this: firstly, it is important for people to understand that the clause that is being proposed does not provide any automatic entitlement to appeal rights for affected property owners. It provides for appeal rights to those people who made a submission in the consultation process. A person can be an affected landholder whose property is on the site and not able to get any access to the appeals being proposed in this clause. This clause, make no mistake, is not about the little people. This clause reinstates the rights of third parties—developers and competitors—to take all these things into the courts. I take on board the views of the member for Gregory. I can assure the member for Gregory that I have had local governments come to me before this bill has been in the House desperate for us to declare some of their areas of development as urban land development authorities because they want to override all of this nonsense where competitors can lock each other up in courts for one, two, sometimes three years. We need only look at the Roma Street barracks to see where that leads. That ultimately had to be called in. What the amendment does is create an appeal right for anybody who made a submission: third parties, competitors, developers et cetera. But it does not guarantee in any way that an affected property owner can go to the minister. The previous clause gives an affected property owner a right of appeal to the minister, regardless of whether they have made a submission. They do not have to have put in a submission. If they find they have been affected they can come straight to the minister. This goes way beyond the rights of citizens or local property owners. This is about anybody who might want 3188 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 06 Sep 2007 to frustrate the process. The appeal right is limited to only those matters in the development scheme that are different from the council’s planning instrument. If people are going to appeal against that, why have a development scheme? Why not go back to having local governments do these things? This bill is designed, where appropriate, to take the planning to a completely different level and for that reason, as I said, the government will not be supporting this amendment. Mr JOHNSON: I hear what the minister is saying. In relation to the comment about going back and letting local government do it, does the minister not think that local government has a right, regardless of whether it is a development or whatever it may be? This is protecting the developer and trying to fast-track development, and we all support that. At the end of the day, does the minister think it is a fair and democratic process to be absolutely bypassing local government and virtually rubber- stamping something that local government might not be happy with that executive government might be happy with? Ms BLIGH: I can only draw the member’s attention to a number of provisions in the bill that actively require the authority to work in partnership with local governments. Local governments must be consulted long before this is a planning scheme, long before this is set in concrete. They actually have to sit down and do this with local government. The bill provides that two people with a local government background must be on the authority. As I outlined earlier to the House, if this authority conducts itself in a way that is anything other than in reasonable partnership with local governments, in my view it will fail very quickly and any government of any political persuasion will take immediate action to replace the board. Dr FLEGG: In the minister’s reply she speaks as though a limited right of appeal is the only issue that is causing delays under the current planning arrangements. That is not the case and the minister knows that that is not the case. This planning arrangement will deal with a whole bunch of bottlenecks and delays that are happening under the present IPA arrangement. All we have asked for is one provision that would restore some of the rights that are currently attributed to people. I do not accept that an appeal right is the only thing that is delaying things in this matter. The minister said that it only applies to someone who has made a submission. I said in my first remark that what we have done is seek to keep the interruptions and delays to a minimum. In effect, an affected landowner who chooses not to make a submission would not have a right to go to the Planning and Environment Court on appeal. I think that is right and proper. I think that very limited right that we are trying to restore to people, the right to be able to make an appeal to somebody other than the minister who is in control of this process in any case, is a minimal inclusion and the precondition that they have made a submission is a reasonable precondition. Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to. AYES, 21—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Gibson, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Langbroek, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson NOES, 52—Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Darling, Fenlon, Finn, Foley, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jones, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Reeves, Roberts, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan Non-government amendment (Dr Flegg) negatived. Clause 54, as read, agreed to. Clauses 55 and 56, as read, agreed to. Clause 57— Dr FLEGG (5.56 pm): Clause 57 has the heading ‘Matters to be considered in making decision’. While it is acknowledged that it is a fundamental right of the government to impose conditions on land that is owned and sold for development by it, the imposition of similar conditions on land not owned by it is strongly opposed. It is contrary to the provisions of the IPA and contrary to existing state government policy, unless the land has been included in the UDA with the informed consent of the owner. Ms BLIGH: This clause essentially goes to the matters that must be considered in making a decision. I believe it is a comprehensive set of what is effectively instructions to the authority. Clause 57, as read, agreed to. Clause 58, as read, agreed to. Clauses 59 to 61 (en bloc amendments)— Dr FLEGG (5.57 pm): With the House’s permission I would like to speak to clauses 59 and 61 together to save us a bit of time. Clause 59, under the heading ‘Decision notice’, does not oblige the authority to communicate the decision notice with each person who has made a submission under the application. We have sought to amend that. 06 Sep 2007 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 3189

Clause 61, under the heading ‘Right of appeal against particular conditions’, does not allow for appeals to be made against the granting of an approval, nor does it allow for appeals to be made against the decision not to grant an approval. An amendment has been sought to allow a person who has made a submission to the authority under section 54 to appeal to the Planning and Environment Court against the authority’s decision to grant the approval. The amendment also stipulates that the appeal must be started within 20 business days after the person receives the notice of the decision. In order to limit the eligibility of appeal applicants and so avoid overloading the court, the amendment is minimalistic again. It restricts appeals to only aspects of that relevant scheme that are different from the planning instrument against which the application would have been decided if it were an IPA development application. The principles are much as I enunciated on clause 54. I seek leave to move amendments Nos 2 and 3 circulated in my name. Leave granted. Dr FLEGG: I move the following amendments— 2 Clause 59 (Decision notice)— At page 44, line 8, ‘authority.’— omit, insert— ‘authority; and (d) each person who made a submission about the application under section 54.’. 3 After clause 61— At page 46, after line 2— insert— ‘61A Right of appeal against grant of approval ‘(1) This section applies if— (a) the authority decides to grant an approval; and (b) a person made a submission, under section 54, to the authority about the application for the approval. ‘(2) The person may appeal to the Planning and Environment Court against the authority’s decision to grant the approval. ‘(3) However, the person may appeal against the decision only in relation to an aspect of the relevant scheme for the decision that is different from a planning instrument against which the application would have been decided if it were an IPA development application. ‘(4) An appeal under subsection (2) must be started within 20 business days after the person is given notice of the decision. ‘(5) The Integrated Planning Act, chapter 4, part 1, divisions 10 to 12, apply to the appeal with any changes the Planning and Environment Court directs. ‘(6) In this section— approval means a UDA development approval, with or without UDA development conditions. relevant scheme, for the decision, means the development scheme, proposed development scheme or interim land use plan considered by the authority under section 57(1)(c) in making the decision.’. Ms BLIGH: The government’s view on this has been largely outlined in the earlier comments I made on appeals generally, but I do draw to the attention of the House that this is about providing appeals against the conditions that have been provided or have been required of developers. The bill as it is currently constructed, as I said earlier, is consistent with provisions in the South Bank Corporation Act and other urban land development authorities around the country. The government will not be supporting the amendments. Mr JOHNSON: I think the appeals process has a lot of merit; I would not be supporting the amendments moved by the Leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Moggill, if it did not. I go to the last part of the paragraph of clause 61, which says— The authority must give the other parties a copy of the notice of election as soon as practicable after it is lodged. I wonder how soon that will be in some cases. It could be a week. If it is a week, that means there are three working weeks left. There is a lot of work to be done in lodging an application as such. Dr Flegg interjected. Mr JOHNSON: That is right. That is a very valid point that the member for Moggill raised. The situation is that with public holidays or whatever the period of time could be eroded. I feel that the appeal process is a very important part of this. The minister would have to agree that in most cases we are talking about multimillion-dollar developments. They are not just $200,000 or $300,000 developments. There is a lot of work to be done with them—headworks, roadworks and public transport. Clause 61(3) states— An appeal under subsection (1) must be started within 20 business days after the day the applicant is given notice of the decision. 3190 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 06 Sep 2007

Clause 61(4) states— The Integrated Planning Act, chapter 4, part 1, divisions 10 to 12, apply to the appeal as if— (a) it were an appeal mentioned in the divisions; and (b) the entity were the only other party to the appeal. As I said earlier, although 20 days is four weeks, if public holidays or Easter comes in the middle of that it could beggar the process up totally. Division: Question put—That amendments Nos 2 and 3 be agreed to. AYES, 21—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Gibson, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Langbroek, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson NOES, 51—Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Choi, Darling, Fenlon, Foley, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jones, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Reeves, Roberts, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Finn, Non-government amendments (Dr Flegg) negatived. Clauses 59 to 61, as read, agreed to. Clause 62, as read, agreed to. Clause 63— Dr FLEGG (6.11 pm): This clause provides for administrative review of the authority’s decision in relation to a development application. It is a right in addition to the applicant’s right to seek judicial review on the grounds that the decision was inconsistent with either preliminary approval or a development scheme. Part 2 provides that the minister may only call in a decisive notice if the relevant development involves a state interest, where a ‘state interest’ is defined as being ‘an interest relating to the purposes of the act’ or ‘an interest that, in the minister’s opinion, affects an economic or environmental interest of the state or a region’. This gives immense power to the minister to override the authority’s decisions—see also clause 64—and implies that the authority is obliged to make decisions based on the state interest. Therefore, if the minister does not wish to use this power, he is not obliged to. State interests could be jeopardised by the authority. Ms BLIGH: I draw to the attention of the House and the shadow minister that this clause is identical to the call-in powers under the Integrated Planning Act. Clause 63, as read, agreed to. Clause 64, as read, agreed to. Clause 65, as read, agreed to. Clause 66— Dr FLEGG (6.14 pm): Clause 66, without reading it out in detail, relates again to the powers of the minister and the absence of a right of appeal. No right of appeal applies under clause 61 in relation to the minister’s decision. Once again, this clause further enforces the power of the minister and takes away the rights of those affected by the changes to a right of appeal. Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for his observations. I again draw to the attention of the House that the provisions in relation to the call-in powers outlined in this clause are identical to those provided to the minister in the Integrated Planning Act. In fact, if this bill were not before the House the minister would still have exactly the same powers as in this clause. The only difference is in subclause (4), and that is that it provides that the minister in exercising their call-in powers may also consider a state interest. Clause 66, as read, agreed to. Clauses 67 to 74, as read, agreed to. Clause 75 (Application to change UDA development approval)— Ms BLIGH (6.15 pm): I move— 1 Clause 75 (Application to change UDA development approval)— At page 51, lines 4 and 5, ‘having an interest in the relevant land for a UDA development approval’— omit. 2 Clause 75 (Application to change UDA development approval)— At page 51, line 6, ‘the approval’— omit, insert— ‘a UDA development approval’. 06 Sep 2007 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 3191

3 Clause 75 (Application to change UDA development approval)— At page 51, after line 21— insert— ‘(5) If the person is not the owner of the relevant land for the UDA development approval, the amendment application must be accompanied by the owner’s consent.’. These three amendments all seek to achieve the same purpose, and that is to bring the provision that is outlined in this clause back into line with the Integrated Planning Act. In essence, clause 75 provides for a person having an interest in the relevant land to apply to the authority to change the approval. This is the only matter that was brought to my attention by the UDIA that I believe warrants some reconsideration. The UDIA put it to the government that casting this clause as widely as ‘a person having an interest’ was too wide and that it should be restricted to property owners. I am happy to take on board the UDIA’s view on that. What this does is nullify the provisions that would have expanded it to ‘a person having an interest’ and return it to a person who is an owner, and that makes it consistent again with the Integrated Planning Act. Dr FLEGG: I have only recently had a chance to look at those amendments. I do not see anything in them that we would object to on this side. Amendments agreed to. Clause 75, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 76 to 77, as read, agreed to. Clause 78— Dr FLEGG (6.18 pm): Clause 78 relates to deciding extension applications. There should be a power to appeal against a refusal by the ULDA to extend a currency period. As the bill stands, there is no right of appeal against a refusal by the ULDA to extend a currency period. Clause 78, as read, agreed to. Clauses 79 to 95, as read, agreed to. Clause 96— Dr FLEGG (6.18 pm): In relation to clause 96(2)—the authority’s main function and its achievements—in our view this should be amended to prohibit the authority from being a developer except of state owned land for state purposes. I think that comment is fairly self-explanatory. I do not believe it is the intent of this bill or the government to turn this authority into a developer of privately owned land, and we believe that should be reflected in the clause. Ms BLIGH: If the member for Moggill really believed that, he would have moved an amendment to that effect. Clause 96, as read, agreed to. Clauses 97 to 100, as read, agreed to. Clause 101— Dr FLEGG (6.20 pm): Clause 101 gives us considerable concern and I will pose the question to the minister to see if she can, to some extent, satisfy our concerns. Clause 101 relates to the imposition of special rates and charges. The imposition of special rates and charges under clause 101 should be reviewed and removed, particularly where such charges apply to privately owned land in UDAs. Perhaps the minister would like to give us a bit more explanation about these special rates and charges, their imposition and why we should be applying special rates and charges to property owners. Ms BLIGH: This provision outlines in a great deal of detail I think the powers of the authority with the minister’s written approval to make and levy on owners or occupiers of rateable land in an urban development area a special rate or charge if it is for a service, facility or activity provided by the authority and then satisfies a range of other clauses. As I have outlined earlier, this is modelled on other urban land development authorities including the South Bank Corporation, which does have certain powers in this regard. It is also the intention of the government—and it is spelt out clearly in the act—that land developed by the authority would return to the jurisdiction of the relevant local government authority and at that time would then be expected, as we would expect, to be paying the rates that everybody else in the local government authority would be paying. So I do not think there is anything extraordinary or concerning about this clause. Dr FLEGG: Minister, I am not totally satisfied with that response. It smacks to me of a new tax, charge, rate or whatever we want to call it. Could the minister give us some examples of the types of services that she envisages the authority might be providing and then seek to charge landowners for? Ms BLIGH: I am happy to expand on my earlier answer. In addition to what I said earlier, basically this provides the Urban Land Development Authority specific powers in relation to the capacity where something specific and local occurs that warrants a special charge for that to be levied in exactly the 3192 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 06 Sep 2007 same way that local governments do now. For example, Brisbane City Council has a SCIP program, Suburban Centre Improvement Program, and I am sure the member will have seen them in his own area. They would be called different things and applied in different ways in other local government areas. But in a SCIP program the local government—the Brisbane City Council—has the capacity to impose a levy specifically for that program on property owners in that street. This provides the authority with the same powers. It is something that— Dr Flegg interjected. Ms BLIGH: I just did; the SCIP program, the Suburban Centre Improvement Program. It has gone through most of the major local strip shopping centres in Brisbane. West End is a good example, as is Stones Corner and Taringa. It provides exactly the same powers to the urban development authority in that regard as we would see from all local councils. Clause 101, as read, agreed to. Clauses 102 to 105, as read, agreed to. Clauses 106 to 111 (en bloc amendments)— Dr FLEGG (6.24 pm): I seek leave to move amendments 4, 5 and 6 circulated in my name. Leave granted. Dr FLEGG: I move— 4 Clause 106 (Eligibility for appointment)— At page 69, lines 9 and 10— omit, insert— ‘(2) However at least 2 appointed members must be persons recommended for appointment by the Local Government Association of Queensland.’. 5 Clause 111 (Disclosure of interests)— At page 70, line 19, ‘has a direct’— omit, insert— ‘has or is likely to have a direct’. 6 Clause 111 (Disclosure of interests)— At page 70, line 30— omit, insert— ‘member must not participate in, and is suspended from office for the period of, the authority’s consideration’. Clause 106 relates to the appointment of the members of the authority. Throughout this debate there is one thing that we are absolutely sure of—that this authority, powerful as it is, should not be 100 per cent government appointed, because no matter how it is dressed up that is exactly what this authority is. It is a body of nine people all appointed by the government with no-one appointed independently whatsoever. We are not dealing with something here that only deals with large enterprise or big business; we are dealing here with a body that in its initial form will have planning power over 30,000 homes in this state and soon to be extended to many thousands more. In our view it is absolutely inappropriate that a body of this nature, particularly given that it will affect so intimately the lives of so many Queenslanders, should be simply a government appointed body. I note that certain members are required to have a background in local government and various other sorts of backgrounds. At the end of the day it is more important that some of the members on this board are independently appointed, and again, Minister, we have been very fair and reasonable on the opposition side in proposing only minimal amendments. We are not asking for a majority of the committee to be independently appointed, but we are asking for somebody on this committee to be appointed other than by the government. If you went out on the street and asked Queenslanders or more particularly if you went to their homes, which will be affected, and asked, ‘Should a body with this sort of power simply be appointed by the government?’, you would have almost universal support for some element—even a minority element—to be appointed independently. The reason for our amendment in terms of the Local Government Association having the right to appoint two members is that, firstly, local government background is a vital skill and that, secondly, the powers given to this authority override the powers of local government. They take away conditions that exist in local government planning instruments as they stand now. Local government is elected by the people. Councillors, shire councils and city councils are elected by the people. Their planning schemes have been put in place because the communities wanted them. When we are going to override that power and take that control away—and it is not councils we are taking it away from; it is local communities that we are taking it away from—it is right and proper that those local communities should have some say. Two members out of a nine-member authority is a small presence but at least it would give some independence. It would give the possibility for communities to express some reservation about the direction in which the authority is taking them. 06 Sep 2007 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 3193

Everybody in this House—and I suspect most people in the state of Queensland—understands how politics works. If the government is appointing the members of this authority the government will be appointing people who are friendly to the government, with whom the government is comfortable. Mr Mickel: Would they be friendly to you? Dr FLEGG: I take that interjection because if we were in government we would be prepared to share some of the power on this authority. Mr Mickel: Rubbish! Dr FLEGG: Yes, we would. It blows my mind to see the minister over there telling communities whose planning schemes are about to be overturned by a state government authority that they do not even deserve two members on a nine-member panel. That is arrogance. This government has already stripped local authorities of enough in this state. They are not even prepared to give them two positions out of nine on an authority whose basic function is to override the planning schemes of local authorities. This is a non-negotiable issue. What we have requested is minimal. It is reasonable. It will restore a little bit of say back to the communities without disrupting the intent of the bill and without overturning what the bill seeks to achieve. I honestly cannot understand why those opposite would have so much contempt for local communities in Queensland that they will not even let them have two members on a nine-member panel. Mr JOHNSON: I endorse fully the remarks made by the member for Moggill, the Leader of the Liberal Party. I believe this is a time when the government should be showing some understanding and some compassion to local government. They have been through the mincer in the last few months. If the government is genuine when it says that local government is going to be bigger, stronger and more viable in the future, now is this government’s opportunity to show some faith in local government and to show some fairness in the selection process of this panel in question. The most important aspect of this is that the minister made reference in the explanatory notes to two representatives from local government. Are those two people from local government going to be local government councillors? Are they going to be bureaucrats working within the system? If they are, that is another part of the process that I believe is an insult to local government. As the Deputy Premier knows, local government is a very responsible body. In many ways they are probably the most important bastion of government in Queensland because they are always at the front line of services. In relation to the selection process, the government says there are going to be representatives from local government, architecture, urban design and planning—I bet those people put their own representatives forward. The next group is social policy or community development followed by law, economics or accounting; the construction or development industries—I can bet those people would also put their nominees forward for the selection process. Mr Cripps: It would be a good idea. Mr JOHNSON: Absolutely. The last group is natural resource and environmental management. In the modern day and age no project can be done without the proper input from the environment sector. I really think these are very integral players. The member for Moggill has moved a very concrete and a good amendment here this evening to make certain that we see this become reality. Again, I say to the Deputy Premier that I think she should show some understanding and not just say no for the sake of saying no. If we are going to take local government forward—and we have heard the Premier say it on numerous occasions—this is her government’s opportunity to show local government that this government is genuine about looking after the issues of local government, about strengthening local government, about strengthening those communities and giving them the power to select their own representatives. Perhaps they will put up 10 or 15 names. Who cares? At the end of the day they will be good men and women from local government who have that experience and expertise and who have local government at heart. I believe that this amendment has merit and I trust that the Deputy Premier can see merit in this amendment and support it here this evening. Ms BLIGH: I outlined in some detail in my summing-up why the government will not be accepting this amendment in relation to appointments to the board. I would take some issue with the proposition relating to asking people in the street whether independent bodies should be appointing people to government boards. Frankly, I think the people would be gobsmacked to find that the government does not appoint every member of every statutory authority. That is how most people would think government works. These amendments are being moved en bloc so I will also address my remarks to the other provisions that are being considered in this session. The second amendment seeks to change the provisions in relation to disclosure of interests, which in the bill provide for a requirement for a person to declare where they have a direct or an indirect interest or where they or a close family member have a direct or indirect interest. The amendment seeks to change that to ‘has or is likely to have’. I do not believe that that is a helpful form of drafting. It asks people to anticipate the future and is imprecise. The way that the clause is currently drafted is a standard clause that is used in a raft of other state legislation in relation to conflict of interest issues. 3194 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 06 Sep 2007

Finally, the third provision in these amendments moved en bloc—the second amendment to clause 111—is an amendment that would require a person who has declared a conflict of interest to be suspended from office for the period of time the authority is considering a matter. Frankly, I do not think that is workable. The bill does provide that, where a person has a conflict and has not declared it, they should be suspended and that is the appropriate way to deal with it. In relation to the meetings of an authority, the authority will actually consider things simultaneously. This is, as I said, a standard provision in relation to conflict of interest. There is nothing in this bill that should warrant any changes to that. Dr FLEGG: The second amendment that we have moved in relation to the composition and operation of the authority is a critically important amendment. The provisions in the bill for a member of this authority to disclose a conflict of interest are as weak as water. They are as weak as water. Honourable members should have a read of the bill. Queensland is a large state, but it has a small community of people who are involved in areas of property development. People only have to turn up at the various property functions and so forth to know that they will meet the same people. We have a relatively limited pool of major developers. A body with these sorts of sweeping powers should not have sitting on it somebody who has a conflict of interest in one of the areas that they are considering. That person ought to step aside until the authority has dealt with that matter. If a person is a major shareholder, a board member or a property owner within that area they should not be sitting through these deliberations. It is not enough to disclose a conflict of interest and perhaps walk out the door once or twice for a particular discussion. This is a very powerful body that is sweeping aside a lot of protections that have existed in this state. Mr Johnson: A long time. Dr FLEGG: I take that interjection from the member for Gregory. Those protections have existed for a long time and have been there for a good reason. Mr Johnson: Safeguards. Dr FLEGG: This is a very powerful body that has very few safeguards, as the member for Gregory says. Anyone sitting on this body who has a significant conflict of interest, anybody sitting on this body who is a director of a development company or a property owner likely to profit from decisions that will be made or a person who has any other conflict of interest should be stood aside until that matter has been dealt with. This is basic good governance. It is not surprising, given a few things we have seen in Queensland in recent times, that some of those opposite do not understand it. It is basic good governance to eliminate conflicts of interest. There are four million-plus people in Queensland who have a right to expect this authority to look clean and to eliminate conflicts of interests, not to have people with invested interests making decisions about their own property or their own project. If there is to be integrity and due process and if the people of Queensland are to respect the integrity surrounding this commission, I think this is an essential amendment. Mr JOHNSON: I do not want to labour the point too much longer, but I want the minister to clarify a couple of issues in relation to clause 106. This is a very important clause. For this legislation to function properly and professionally and, in the Premier’s words, in a transparent and credible way, the selection process should be an integral part of it. I heard the minister’s comments, but what is the criteria to become eligible for selection to this panel? The other point I make is that the minister says that executive council will make that decision. It will come with the minister’s blessing, though. These people are professionals. At the end of the day there should be a criteria, which will apply throughout the state, that will give everyone the opportunity to become a member of the panel. Is the panel going to be composed of bureaucrats or are there going to be councillors on that panel? Ms BLIGH: The member for Gregory was not here when I spoke to this issue in my summing-up. In terms of the criteria, they are spelt out in some extensive detail. However, the government considers a background and experience in local government to be so important that it has specifically required in subclause (2) that at least two of the appointed members are to be appointed by the Governor in Council. So we are not restricting it to two, but at least two must have local government experience. I think that speaks for itself. I would expect that we would see people who have had experience as elected councillors. There may be people who have had extensive experience as town-planners, but I would expect that we would have people who have had experience as elected councillors. During the debate we have spoken at length about the fact that the authority potentially has jurisdiction over many parts of Queensland. So I think it is important that the whole nine, as a group, is representative across the state. The government wants to reserve the right to make that selection so that we can ensure that as a group those people represent all of the characteristics that have been outlined in that clause. 06 Sep 2007 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 3195

I advise the House—because I do not want there to be a debate about this later on and I do not have any concerns about the right of the member for Gregory to contribute to this debate—that, as members would notice, we have gone past the dinner hour. I had a discussion with the member for Moggill as the shadow minister. There is another bill that the government will be putting to the House this evening. The member for Moggill has assured me that we will be through this bill and that bill and have time for the adjournment debate and be out of here by eight o’clock. I am saying this because I know that there are staff here whose time for their dinner hour has now been protracted. The House will not be sitting beyond eight o’clock. Division: Question put—That amendments 4, 5 and 6 be agreed to. AYES, 23—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Langbroek, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson NOES, 45—Attwood, Barry, Bligh, Bombolas, Choi, Darling, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jones, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Reeves, Roberts, Scott, Shine, Smith, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan Non-government amendments (Dr Flegg) negatived. Clauses 106 to 111, as read, agreed to. Clauses 112 to 143, as read, agreed to. Clause 144 (Review of Act)— Dr FLEGG (6.50 pm) I move the following amendment— 7 Clause 144 (Review of Act)— At page 85, lines 11 to 20— omit, insert— ‘144 Expiry of Act ‘This Act expires 5 years after the commencement of this section.’. One issue that throughout this debate is unquestionable—and it does not matter whether we listen to the minister, whether we listen to members on this side of the House or we listen to members on the other side of the House—is that there have been substantial problems with planning approvals and development within this state. In her concluding remarks the minister gave us a couple of horror stories, one from her own electorate and one from up the coast. At the end of the day, this state needs a viable working planning system. If there is one overwhelming message from all the consultation I have conducted on this particular bill it is that ultimately the answer to this problem is to get the planning scheme right—to fix up IPA or replace it with a planning scheme that works, that respects the wishes of communities when they build in what they want in their community, that respects the rights of individuals, developers and property owners but allows development to be approved and undertaken in an efficient manner. That is the overwhelming issue. The government, having failed to address the problems in planning for the past decade or so, is now putting in place these sorts of draconian provisions that sweep away the rights of so many people involved one way or another with property. This measure should have a sunset clause on it. We should be saying to the government, ‘Get it right. Get in and fix the planning schemes in Queensland. Give yourself two or three—or in this case five—years to get the planning schemes right and then cease the authorities and the overriding of local communities’ individual rights and existing planning schemes that is encompassed in this bill. Mr Johnson: If IPA worked you wouldn’t need a sunset clause. Dr FLEGG: I take that interjection from the member for Gregory. If the government had got IPA right and it worked, this legislation would not be necessary. This amendment gives the government five years to get the planning schemes right in the state, return planning to communities so that they can have a say and restore some of the rights that property owners, businesspeople and local authorities should have. By not having a sunset clause in this bill the government is saying that it does not intend to get planning right in Queensland, it cannot get it right, it is not good enough to get it right. I do not know which of those it is saying, but the government is telling the people of Queensland that it cannot get the planning schemes of this state right and it should return planning back to local communities where it has been for centuries and where it belongs. I would love to see the government accept this amendment. I challenge the government to go back—it has five years to do it—get planning right in this state and we would not need this legislation and it will fade away. Ms BLIGH: This amendment is absolute nonsense. This amendment basically requires that the act would expire five years after it commenced. Basically, the activity of the authority would effectively stop after four years because new areas of land could not be taken on. What it does say, as would be 3196 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 06 Sep 2007 expected in any piece of legislation, is that the bill must be reviewed after five years and the report of the review must be tabled. If this does not work then the government of the day can revoke it. But to put in a clause that would actually stop the operation of legislation after five years is nonsense. Mr JOHNSON: I find the Deputy Premier’s comments astounding. I believe that this is a very responsible amendment. In the legislation itself the minister must within five years after the section commences carry out a review of the operation and effectiveness of this act. I would think that there would be checks and balances in the period of five years to make certain things were progressing satisfactorily and we are getting genuine resolutions and outcomes. I believe that five years is a long time to wait. I would like the Deputy Premier’s comments in relation to that. We have to make absolutely certain, regardless of who and where it is, that if there is a problem we get it right during that time, not wait five years. At the end of the day I agree with the member for Moggill that if there was a sunset clause it would fix it once and for all. If IPA and all the other pieces of planning legislation were right we would not be here today. The Deputy Premier, in her summary, made reference to what I said yesterday about encouraging people to live out in places like my electorate. I made mention yesterday of people living in places where the associated infrastructure is and encouraging business to go out there. I would have thought that the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure would be looking at ways and means of encouraging people to live in other parts of the state, not a heavy concentration in the south-east corner where we are nearly out of water and where our road and transport system is taxed—the whole thing is taxed. Every year since I have been here amendments to legislation are moved. The government comes in here and puts in place new legislation or amendments to legislation that cover some other aspect that is not working. I believe this is the opportunity once and for all to get it right. Mr WELLINGTON: I would like to speak to the amendment. I have heard the member for Moggill speak about the need to return the planning scheme to the community. Can I put on the record a situation that happened in the Maroochy shire where the local council was not prepared to comply with its own planning scheme and it called on the Premier of the day to call the matter in to save thousands of ratepayers’ dollars because the jolly council would not comply with its own planning scheme. I support the government on having a review in five years. Between now and then we will have had another election. If we are going to say that the planning scheme is to terminate in five years, quite frankly we will have a winding down in four years. If it were proposed that this terminate in five years there is a whole range of decisions that would not be made because of a view that it is all over red rover. I am happy to support a review in five years. That is consistent with legislation we have seen passed time and time again in this House. Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for Nicklin for the most sensible contribution to this debate from that side of the chamber. It is true that there are not only the provisions of this bill that set up the Urban Land Development Authority but also a number of changes to IPA which will allow local councils to continue in their planning but make sure that they do it in the time limits that they have to do it in. It is time to call a spade a spade; this bill attempts to fix the sorts of problems that the member for Nicklin outlined. Dr FLEGG: On the comments that the Deputy Premier made, you can deal with transitional arrangements. I do not think that was a valid argument at all. This is an admission of defeat. You cannot fix planning so we will have to put up with these instruments. The member for Nicklin made some comments. I am not an expert on the particular case he was concerned about, but I would say to him that when his community had a problem with that issue and when the member for Nicklin as the elected member had a problem with that issue he had the option of going to the minister and getting something done about it. If we have a problem with anything that comes out of the arrangements in this bill, it is like it or lump it. So, if this bill had imposed that development on the member for Nicklin’s community, it would be all over red rover. You cannot appeal, you cannot do anything, you can write a letter to the minister. At the end of the day, just because an individual council does not behave right or the wrong decision gets made, you do not throw the community’s ability to have a local plan out, like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Under this bill, the member would not have been able to get that development overturned. He would have been told to like it or lump it. That is what people will confront. Division: Question put—That the member for Moggill’s amendment be agreed to. AYES, 21—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Gibson, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Langbroek, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson NOES, 48—Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Choi, Darling, Fenlon, Finn, Foley, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jones, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Reeves, Roberts, Scott, Shine, Smith, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan Non-government amendment (Dr Flegg) negatived. Clause 144, as read, agreed to. 06 Sep 2007 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 3197

Clauses 145 to 202 (en bloc amendments)— Ms BLIGH (7.07 pm): I seek leave to move amendments Nos 4, 5 and 6 in my name. Leave granted. 4 After clause 146— At page 85, after line 30— insert— ‘Part 7A Amendment of Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 ‘146A Act amended in pt 7A ‘This part amends the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997. ‘146B Amendment of s 29 (Notice about change of scheme being developed progressively) ‘Section 29(3), ‘under the Planning Act’— omit. ‘146C Amendment of s 57 (Other matters about new statements for schemes developed progressively) ‘(1) Section 57(4), ‘the development approval or’— omit, insert— ‘a development approval or the’. ‘(2) Section 57(7)(b), ‘the development approval’— omit, insert— ‘each development approval’. ‘(3) Section 57(7)(c), ‘has’— omit, insert— ‘or the urban land development authority has, under section 60,’. ‘146D Replacement of s 60 (Local government community management statement notation) ‘Section 60— omit, insert— ‘60 Community management statement notation ‘(1) Subject to subsection (6), a community management statement proposed to be recorded for a community titles scheme may be recorded only if each relevant planning body for the scheme has endorsed on the statement a certificate (a community management statement notation). ‘(2) In a community management statement notation a relevant planning body for a community titles scheme states only that it has noted the community management statement. ‘(3) Subject to subsection (4), a relevant planning body must endorse a community management statement notation on the proposed community management statement. ‘(4) For a community titles scheme intended to be developed progressively, a relevant planning body for the scheme is not required to endorse a community management statement notation on the proposed community management statement if there is an inconsistency between a provision of the statement and— (a) if the relevant planning body is a local government—a lawful requirement of, or an approval given by, the local government under the Integrated Planning Act 1997; or (b) if the relevant planning body is the urban land development authority—a lawful requirement of, or an approval given by— (i) a local government under the Integrated Planning Act 1997; or (ii) the urban land development authority under the Urban Land Development Authority Act 2007; or (c) the planning instrument of the relevant planning body; or (d) a lawful requirement of, or an approval given by, the relevant planning body under the planning instrument of the relevant planning body. Example for subsection (4)— A relevant planning body that is a local government would be expected to refuse to endorse a proposed community management statement with a community management statement notation if the statement envisages development of part of the scheme land in a way prohibited under its planning instrument. However, the relevant planning body would be expected to endorse the proposed statement with a community management statement notation if the proposed community management statement acknowledges that development of the part of the land in the way proposed will proceed only if and when a suitable amendment of the planning instrument is made. ‘(5) For subsection (4), a provision of the statement is not inconsistent with a planning instrument only because— (a) the planning instrument allows a person to do an act or engage in an activity in the area in which the community titles scheme is established; and (b) the provision requires the person to obtain the body corporate’s permission before doing the act or engaging in the activity on scheme land. 3198 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 06 Sep 2007

‘(6) Despite subsection (1), a new community management statement may be recorded without the endorsement on it of any community management statement notation that is otherwise required if— (a) there is no difference between the existing statement for the scheme and the new statement for any issue that a relevant planning body for the scheme could have regard to for identifying an inconsistency mentioned in subsection (4); or Example for paragraph (a)— The new statement includes an interest schedule that is different from the interest schedule included in the existing statement, but there is otherwise no difference between the 2 statements. (b) any difference between the statements is limited to changes to reflect— (i) a lot entitlement adjustment agreed to under section 50; or (ii) a formal acquisition affecting the scheme; or (iii) a change in a services location diagram for the scheme; or (iv) the incorporation of a lot with common property, or conversion of lessee common property to a lot, under section 40. ‘(7) If a relevant planning body for the scheme does not endorse a community management statement notation within 40 days after the community management statement is submitted for endorsement under this section, or refuses to endorse the notation— (a) the person who submitted the community management statement for endorsement of the notation may appeal to the Planning and Environment Court under the Integrated Planning Act 1997; and (b) the court is required to hear and decide the appeal. ‘(8) For an appeal under subsection (7)— (a) the relevant planning body is the respondent; and (b) the Integrated Planning Act 1997, chapter 4, part 1, divisions 10 to 12 apply, with necessary changes, as if— (i) the appeal were an appeal mentioned in the divisions; and (ii) the relevant planning body were the only other party to the appeal; and (c) the appellant must give the relevant planning body the written notice of the appeal under the divisions within 10 business days after starting the appeal. ‘(9) In this section— planning instrument, of a relevant planning body, means— (a) if the body is a local government— (i) its planning scheme under the Integrated Planning Act 1997; or (ii) an instrument of the local government having effect as if it were a planning scheme of the local government; or (b) if the body is the urban land development authority—an interim land use plan or development scheme under the Urban Land Development Authority Act 2007. relevant planning body, for a community titles scheme, means— (a) to the extent scheme land is or is proposed to be located in an urban development area—the urban land development authority; and (b) to the extent scheme land is or is proposed to be located in a local government area but not in an urban development area—the local government for the local government area.’. ‘146E Amendment of s 61 (Giving copy of community management statement to local government) ‘(1) Section 61, heading, ‘to local government’— omit. ‘(2) Section 61(1), ‘either’— omit, insert— ‘any’. ‘(3) Section 61(1)— insert— ‘(c) a community management statement that, under section 60, is endorsed with a community management statement notation by the urban land development authority.’. ‘(4) Section 61(2)— omit, insert— ‘(2) The body corporate must give a copy of the statement to— (a) each local government in whose local government area scheme land is located; and (b) if any scheme land is in an urban development area and the urban land development authority has not endorsed the statement under section 60—the authority.’. ‘146F Amendment of s 78 (Termination of schemes) ‘Section 78(6)— insert— ‘(c) if any scheme land is in an urban development area, the urban land development authority.’. 06 Sep 2007 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 3199

‘146G Amendment of s 80 (Effect of termination on accrued charge, levy, rate or tax) ‘Section 80(1)(b), after ‘Local Government Act 1993’— insert— ‘, the Urban Land Development Authority Act 2007’. ‘146H Amendment of s 180 (Limitations for by-laws) ‘Section 180(2), after ‘local law’— insert— ‘or UDA by-law’. ‘146I Amendment of section 196 (Utility services not separately charged for) ‘(1) Section 196(7), ‘Subsections (8) and (9)’— omit, insert— ‘Subsections (8), (9) and (10)’. ‘(2) Section 196(9) to (11)— renumber as section 196(10), (12) and (13) respectively. ‘(3) Section 196— insert— ‘(9) If the utility service provider is the urban land development authority, the unpaid amount becomes a special rate or charge under the Urban Land Development Authority Act 2007 that is payable proportionately by each lot owner according to the contribution schedule lot entitlement for the lot.’. ‘(4) Section 196(10), as renumbered, after ‘local government’— insert— ‘or the urban land development authority’. ‘(5) Section 196— insert— ‘(11) For applying the Urban Land Development Authority Act 2007, section 127 for the purposes of subsection (9), the reference in the section to the land is taken to be a reference to each lot.’. ‘(6) Section 196(12), as renumbered, ‘Subsection (9)’— omit, insert— ‘Subsection (10)’. ‘146J Amendment of s 197 (Registering charge on land under this Act) ‘Section 197(1) and (2), ‘section 196(9)(b)’— omit, insert— ‘section 196(10)(b)’. ‘146K Amendment of s 198 (Effect of scheme change on liability for charges etc.) Section 198— insert— ‘(4) Also, this section does not apply to an amount owing to the urban land development authority to the extent this section is inconsistent with the Urban Land Development Authority Act 2007.’. ‘146L Amendment of s 313 (Representation in planning proceedings) ‘Section 313(1), ‘Planning Act’— omit, insert— ‘Integrated Planning Act 1997’. ‘146M Amendment of sch 4 (By-laws) ‘Schedule 4, section 10(2)(a)— omit, insert— ‘(a) comply with all of the following laws about the disposal of garbage— (i) if the lot is in an urban development area—UDA by-laws, and any local laws that apply; (ii) if the lot is not in an urban development area—local laws; and’. ‘146N Amendment of sch 6 (Dictionary) ‘(1) Schedule 6, definitions development approval, Planning Act and planning scheme— omit. ‘(2) Schedule 6— insert— ‘development approval means— (a) a development approval under the Integrated Planning Act 1997; or 3200 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 06 Sep 2007

(b) a UDA development approval under the Urban Land Development Authority Act 2007. UDA by-law means a by-law made by the urban land development authority. urban development area means an urban development area under the Urban Land Development Authority Act 2007. urban land development authority means the Urban Land Development Authority under the Urban Land Development Authority Act 2007.’.’. 5 Clause 154 (Replacement of ch 2, pt 5A)— At page 139, line 12, ‘section 5.3.8’— omit, insert— ‘section 5.2.3’. 6 Clause 200 (Amendment of s 5.2.3 (Matters certain infrastructure agreements must contain)— At page 167, line 30, ‘may’— omit. Ms BLIGH: I think the amendments speak for themselves. Dr FLEGG: Could the minister give us a 30-second commentary on the amendments? Ms BLIGH: Amendment No. 4 inserts a number of amendments which, all combined together, have the effect of providing to the Urban Land Development Authority the same provisions as the local council would have in relation to body corporates. The last two amendments go simply to correction of errors—for example, removing a repeated word. Amendments agreed to. Clauses 145 to 202, as amended, agreed to. Clause 203— Dr FLEGG (7.09 pm): Mr Acting Speaker— Ms Bligh: You won’t have much time on the revenue bill. Dr FLEGG: Minister, we are doing the best we can to hurry it along, but we are not in control of who wishes to speak. As members of parliament, they have a right to speak and I do not think there should be an effort to deny them. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Moggill, that is a reflection on the chair. I am controlling this place. Please speak to clause 203. Dr FLEGG: Clause 203 relates to state infrastructure charges. It seems to me on examination that state infrastructure charges are a new charge, and it also seems to me that they would be levied potentially on top of the sorts of infrastructure charges that would apply at a local council level. I ask the minister to clarify the status of the state infrastructure charges. Ms BLIGH: This issue was canvassed widely in the debate and addressed specifically in my summing-up. I refer the member to the south-east Queensland plan which provides specifically for state infrastructure charges. There is nothing new about them. Division: Question put—That clause 203, as read, stand part of the bill. AYES, 49—Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Choi, Cunningham, Darling, Fenlon, Finn, Foley, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jones, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Reeves, Roberts, Scott, Shine, Smith, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan NOES, 20—Copeland, Cripps, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Gibson, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Langbroek, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 204— Dr FLEGG (7.16 pm): Clause 204 contains no provision for any compensation to be dealt with. I want to record in this debate that the opposition is concerned given the nature of this bill and its fairly draconian measures that people who ought to have a rightful claim to compensation, whose interest is severely impacted, have no such right under this bill under clause 204. Clause 204, as read, agreed to. Interruption. 06 Sep 2007 Urban Land Development Authority Bill 3201

Remaining Stages; Allocation of Time Limit Order Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (7.17 pm), by leave, without notice, I move— That under the provisions of standing order 159, the Urban Land Development Authority Bill be declared an urgent bill and the following time limits apply to enable the bill to be passed through its remaining stages at this day’s sitting— (a) Consideration in detail to be completed by 7.18 pm; (b) Third reading by 7.19 pm; and (c) Long title agreed by 7.20 pm. If the stage has not been completed by the time specified, Mr Speaker shall put all remaining questions necessary to pass the bill, including clauses and schedules en bloc and any amendments to be moved by the minister in charge of the bill, without further amendment or debate. Opposition members interjected. Ms BLIGH: You are wasting time interjecting. Opposition members interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! We are trying to copy down these time lines, so have some consideration for Hansard and the people here at the table. Ms BLIGH: Mr Acting Speaker, I outlined to the House earlier that I sought an agreement from the shadow minister in relation to whether a dinner hour should be called at 6.30. I advised him that there was another bill to come before the House. He indicated to me that it would be perfectly possible to finish these two bills and have an adjournment by eight o’clock. That was the commitment he gave. On that basis I have agreed to deny the staff of this parliament their dinner break at 6.30. Workplace health and safety require that a break should occur at eight o’clock. I advised at about a quarter past six that the House will rise at eight, and all we have seen in the intervening time is filibustering and people speaking who are not in charge of this bill—all because they wanted this motion brought on. They wanted it; they got it. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (7.19 pm): I believe that members of this House, regardless of whether they are ministers, shadow ministers or ordinary members of parliament, have a right to speak on legislation. That is what the democratic process is all about. I say here tonight that I have never witnessed this before in 18 years. Government members: Ha, ha! Mr JOHNSON: No, this is no laughing matter. We have a minister who is dictating an agenda. We have seen what happened to the democratic process in relation to local government, and tonight the minister is trying to shut the parliament down and deprive members of having a say on a very important piece of legislation. Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to. AYES, 46—Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Choi, Darling, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jones, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Reeves, Roberts, Scott, Shine, Smith, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wells, Wendt, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan NOES, 23—Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Foley, Gibson, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Langbroek, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Rickuss, Dickson Resolved in the affirmative. Consideration in Detail Resumed from p. 3200. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Under the provisions of the resolution agreed to by the House and the time limit for the consideration in detail of the bill having expired, the question is that clauses 205 to 250 and schedule 1 be agreed to. Clauses 205 to 250 and schedule 1, as read, agreed to.

Third Reading Question put—That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Long Title Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to. 3202 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 06 Sep 2007

REVENUE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2)

Remaining Stages; Allocation of Time Limit Order Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (7.28 pm), by leave, without notice: I move— That under the provisions of standing order 159, the Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) be declared an urgent bill and the following time limits apply to enable the bill to be passed through its remaining stages at this day’s sitting— (a) Second reading by 7.45 pm; (b) Consideration in detail to be completed by 7.47 pm; (c) Third reading by 7.49 pm; and (d) Long title agreed by 7.50 pm. If the stage has not been completed by the time specified, Mr Speaker shall put all remaining questions necessary to pass the bill, including clauses and schedules en bloc and any amendments to be moved by the minister in charge of the bill, without further amendment or debate. Motion agreed to.

REVENUE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2)

Second Reading Resumed from 22 August (see p. 2766). Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, I report that Mr Speaker has received a letter from the member for Mount Isa relating to the debate on the Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). The member has requested that a declaration be tabled prior to debate on this bill. I table the declaration for the information of members. I order that the contents be incorporated in the records of the House. BETTY KIERNAN MP Thursday 6th September, 2007 Hon Mike Reynolds Speaker Queensland Parliament Alice Street BRISBANE QLD 4001 Dear Speaker I am unable to be in the Parliament as I am returning to my electorate, I request that at the commencement of the Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), that the following declaration be tabled prior to the debate of this Bill. I advise the house that I did not intend to speak on the Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), I do however wish to make a declaration in accordance with Standing Order 260, that I have an interest in a company called Belford Pty Ltd. That company owns the Dajarra Hotel and a Gaming Licence and may be affected by this legislation. My interests have long been declared on the Register of Members Interests. Yours sincerely (sgd) BETTY KIERNAN MP Member for Mount Isa Tabled paper: Letter dated 6 September 2007 from Ms Betty Kiernan MP, Member for Mount Isa to Hon. Mike Reynolds MP, Speaker, regarding her declaration in accordance with SO 260. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (7.29 pm): The debate on this bill has been shortened. However, this is a revenue bill and there are some fairly important issues in this bill that I intend to speak about. Within this bill are a number of provisions to sell off or facilitate the selling off of some significant state government assets. What we have seen in this state is a dramatic deterioration in the government’s budgetary position, with an incredible escalation in its debt to a projected $52 billion. This government is now scrambling for new sources of revenue, to raid every hollow log and sell every asset that it can possibly manage to sell. Among the assets to be sold is Enertrade, whose annual report makes quite interesting reading. I did have some questions to ask the minister but it does not look like we are going to get too many answers out of her tonight. Enertrade has managed to lose money, and substantial licks of money, over recent years. It has on its balance sheet several hundred million dollars worth of liabilities relating to poor contract decisions, in particular contracts in relation to buying energy. Given the extent of the balance sheet and the losses being made in Enertrade, one wonders exactly what it would be worth given that it is losing tens of millions of dollars a year and carries with it the poison pill of over $300 million worth of liabilities. During a proper debate, which we should be having, on this bill, I would have been asking the minister some questions in relation to that. 06 Sep 2007 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3203

The other areas that we are selling off are wind farms held by Stanwell Power and Tarong Power located predominantly in other states of Australia. Wind power is one of the greenest forms of power, and presumably our coal-fired power stations at Tarong and Stanwell entered into wind farms in order to offset some of their carbon footprint. I also note that they have cost the Queensland taxpayer a motza to build. The Queensland taxpayer has been shelling out one way or another through Stanwell and Tarong an absolute motza to build green wind-powered power stations in the southern states of Australia. In fact, Stanwell has spent $148 million on wind generation and Tarong has spent $195 million on wind generation. That is a total of some $350 million-odd of Queensland taxpayers’ money. I would have asked the minister had she not been so reluctant to be answerable to this parliament and get asked questions on a revenue bill to explain to us what Queensland taxpayers got for their $350 million. The first question is that now that the government has decided to sell them I am not sure exactly why it made the investment if it was going to sell them at a loss anyway. Why make the investment and then flog it off—and they are predominantly in the southern states anyway—at a loss? There is only one explanation, and that explanation is the one I gave earlier—that is, that this is a government that is cash strapped and desperate for money. I would have been asking the Deputy Premier what she expects to get from them. I have seen the figure of $300 million, and I think that probably includes Enertrade as well. Possibly we are making a profit on the wind farms and have to pay someone to take Enertrade off our hands. But they are questions I suspect we will not get much of an answer to tonight. Queenslanders should make no mistake when they look at these transactions, and these are big transactions. It is an embarrassment to this parliament that they are not being properly explored here today, but $350 million worth of investment in wind farms has gone with the wind, pardon the pun, and there has been no explanation as to whether these have operated at a profit or a loss. There is no explanation as to why we would be selling them at a loss. There is no explanation of why the state is so cash strapped that we have to sell off the greenest form of energy there is that was in place to offset some of the carbon footprint of coal-fired power stations in the manner in which we are doing. There are a significant number of aspects related to this bill that I would have liked to have raised, but I am mindful that other members wish to speak on this bill. I record on the public record my concern about these matters. The questions I have raised are there for the Deputy Premier to answer. If she is not willing to answer them tonight, perhaps she will answer them in some other manner or perhaps I shall have to ask them in a different forum. But I would like to know the economics of what went on with these wind farms. One thing that I am pretty pleased about is that the government is not running my share portfolio for me, because I would be broke! Here we are selling wind farms of all things at a loss while it is flogging off trading enterprises because it has done that badly. It has been losing money hand over fist and it has contract liabilities of $300 million. We recently saw it flog off Allgas which it bought off the private sector on the stock market and then flogged it off after a very ordinary performance with it. After the government flogged it off, it changed all of the laws about who has to install gas-fired hot water systems to make the business more profitable for the people it sold it to instead of making it more profitable in the first place for Queensland taxpayers. We have here a government whose management of its business enterprise— Ms Bligh: I thought you thought the private sector should do these things. Dr FLEGG: No. They are matters that are not core businesses of government. However, the government went into wind farms in the first place. Now it is selling them off. They were presumably to offset some carbon footprint and now the government does not want to answer why it needs to sell them. If it has a good reason, let us hear that good reason. The issue over which assets should be privately and publicly funded is a totally different argument and certainly one that we on this side would love to have. The issue here is that these assets are already government run. We have seen what was done with Allgas, with Enertrade—and it is a cot case—and this illogical decision of building green energy stations for the southern states investing $350 million of Queensland taxpayers’ money and then flogging them off at a loss because this state is now so poor that we cannot afford to hang on to our investment until it turns a profit. There is nothing that I can see that explains what sort of revenue we are forgoing with the sale of these wind farms. Queenslanders deserve at least those sorts of minimal answers. Mr FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (7.38 pm): I rise to participate in this debate on the Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), as brief as it may be. I want to touch for a moment on gambling. I found a great quote the other day that said that gambling is the sure way of getting nothing from something, and I think there is an element of truth in that. The legislation is planning on extending the ability of hotels to remain open longer and to install approved gaming machines before the approval lapses. Any legislation by my way of thinking that increases the approval, number or access to gambling machines should be of major concern to all Queenslanders. 3204 Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 06 Sep 2007

According to the Queensland Household Gambling Survey of 2003-04, 95 per cent of problem gamblers gamble on gaming machines compared with just 32 per cent of the adult population. This causes a huge stress on our society. There is a trend towards depression and suicidal thoughts amongst the higher risk groups. Approximately 47 per cent of people in this group report that they have felt seriously depressed in the previous year. Thirty-nine per cent were under doctor’s care for stress related issues and 17 per cent reported that they have seriously considered suicide because of their gambling. In the interests of time I am going to cut short my speech. Suffice to say that in my electorate alone, which has around 26,000 people, we have 432 gaming machines. That comes down to one gaming machine for every 60 people in my city. It is a shameful situation. It is the people who can least afford to lose the money who are losing the money. There is an overrepresentation of people who completed their education at year 10 level in these particular statistics. I also raise with the minister the concern that there is quite a disparity between the rules for hotels and the rules for clubs. That is an area that obviously needs to be addressed as well. I came across a very salient comment the other day that horses are much smarter than people because we never hear of a horse going broke betting on people. I know there are a few punters here who might want to disagree with that. That is one aspect that I wanted to touch on tonight. One of the interesting facts I have come across is the Department of Corrective Services’ gambling survey, which found that 71 per cent of problem gamblers were also very alcohol affected. They consume alcohol whilst gambling. Close to a third admit to using marijuana four plus times a day. So there are a lot of other factors involved. During 2004-05 machine gaming was conducted in Queensland’s licensed clubs and category 1 licensed premises, principally hotels and taverns, under a regulatory environment ensuring the highest standard of machine gaming and an impeccable operation. As at 30 June 2005 there were 592 licensed clubs operating 21,102 gaming machines and 791 category 1 licensed premises operating 18,382 gaming machines, giving a total of 1,383 venues operating 39,484 machines. I am going to cut my speech short for the sake of saving time. I want to make it very clear and put on the public record my absolute opposition to pokies and the evils they bring to families in Queensland. Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—NPA) (7.42 pm): I shall be very brief—disappointingly so. I would like to comment on the sale of the wind farms. It is very disappointing that this government is giving lip- service to clean, green energy and it is divesting itself of the only carbon neutral energy producing source that it owns. I note that the proceeds from the sale will contribute towards the Queensland Climate Change Fund and I certainly hope that this will go a lot further than just on glossy paper brochures, government spiel and administration costs. The threat of global warming and climate change will probably be the single most significant issue of the 21st century and, to that extent, attention to power generation is a key component. An analysis of Queensland figures shows that the stationary energy emissions areas in 2004 were by far the highest producers of greenhouse emissions and to this extent renewable energy fields must be pursued. I am aware that the wind farms that are being divested are a fairly small proportion of the wind farming power that is produced. However, we need to look at Victoria where the Pacific Hydro farms in Victoria are looking at a target to supply 12 per cent of Victoria’s electricity by 2020. Very shortly Australia is about to embrace carbon trading. This will push the price of wind farms through the roof. How far ahead is this government looking when it is considering what it is divesting and what it is selling? The costs of this will go through the roof. I will leave it at that, but there is a lot more that I would have liked to have said. Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (7.44 pm), in reply: In the time that I have I will respond quickly to those points. I point out to the member for Burdekin that the wind farms are actually not closing down; they will continue to generate energy. The status of the ownership is irrelevant to that. This bill facilitates their sale; it does not mandate their sale. We will be putting it to market. If we do not get a good offer then we will not sell them. Who is going to sell them at a loss? It is stupid. I say to the member for Maryborough that I share his concerns about gambling. I am pleased to see him put them on the record. Queensland actually has one of the best and most responsible gambling regimes in the country but that does not mean that we cannot do more and should not be striving to do more. I am very happy to assure him that this is an area of my portfolio that I take very seriously. I get regular reports from Treasury, particularly from its Household Gambling Survey that often shows some quite worrying trends, particularly in some of the areas that he outlined. I do stress that it is a very small minority, but for those people it has a very serious impact on them and their families. Motion agreed to. 06 Sep 2007 Adjournment 3205

Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 42, as read, agreed to.

Third Reading Question put—That the bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to.

Long Title Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (7.46 pm): I move— That the House, at its rising, do adjourn until Tuesday, 9 October 2007. Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT

Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (7.46 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn.

Child Protection Week Mr DEMPSEY (Bundaberg—NPA) (7.46 pm): This is Child Protection Week and it is appropriate to focus on the safety of all children. Child protection starts in the family home, but many different groups and organisations also do a great job in helping to provide for the needs of young people. One of these groups helping children is the I Can Children’s Program, which is facilitated by Bundaberg Centacare and supported by Xstrata Community Partnerships Program Queensland. I thank them for their support of this very worthwhile program that turns young, shy, hidden rocks into bright, positive and confident diamonds. The I Can Children’s Course is a group program that provides therapeutic intervention for those children who are uncomfortable in the school environment. These children are identified by teachers and parents as anxious, reluctant to join in and as having limited friendships. The program is held at the host school and focuses on recognition of strengths, the practise of new skills and the development of self-confidence in the individual child, thereby encouraging participation in the school community. The course offers friendship skills, skills for resilience, development of positive self-image and new confidence. The children are aged between six and eight years, participate in a group of six and attend the course for three weeks. The course uses art therapy, music and movement, stories, snack time social skills and strengths based counselling. The objectives of the course are to help children understand themselves and others and to assist children to develop and maintain friendships. As well as attending a pre-course consultation with the facilitators, the parents are invited to a follow-up session to assist with the evaluation. This program has already been conducted in five Bundaberg schools with very positive results. I especially thank program coordinator Shari Jackson, Centacare manager Donna Forbes and her professional and dedicated staff. Centacare is certainly fulfilling its motto of ‘enhancing the wellbeing of individuals and families’. Many thousands of young people were also enlightened as the World Youth Day Journey of the Cross and Icon visited Bundaberg en route to World Youth Day in Sydney in August 2008. This visit galvanised the district and regardless of people’s religious beliefs the whole community—both young and old—owe a depth of gratitude to the Bundaberg JCI committee, headed by Angela Croake, and including Cheryl Peterson, Anne Sheehan, Denise Tuzes, Father Matthew Moloney, Paulette Huggins, the Bundaberg based National Evangilisation Team members Chris Taucar, Sarah Schick, Melissa Baker, David Hood, Alyse French, Craig Hancock, Bev Bennett, Michelle May and Mary Taylor, and the Catholic Diocese of Rockhampton World Youth Day Coordinator Stefanie Lloyd, who will be there every step of the way until the World Youth Day Journey of the Cross and Icon leaves the diocese from Longreach. 3206 Adjournment 06 Sep 2007

Cantabile Choir Mr MOORHEAD (Waterford—ALP) (7.49 pm): I wish to speak about two amazing performances in the life of Canterbury College of Waterford, which is in my electorate. Yesterday I was lucky enough to be a guest of Donna Anderson, the Head of College, to witness the blessing of the Junior School redevelopment by His Grace, the Archbishop Phillip Aspinall. It was a wonderful ceremony.

On 24 August I was able to attend an amazing performance of Cantabile Choir at St Mary’s Anglican Church, Kangaroo Point. Cantabile Choir is an internationally renowned choir based at Canterbury College, Waterford. The choir performed in partnership with Opera Queensland. This partnership started with the annual Opera in the Canefields event at Beenleigh. The performance of the Cantabile Choir was stunning, as always, and showed a group of performers who could hold their own with the three performers from Opera Queensland, Jessica O’Donoghue, Susan Ellis and Victoria Lambourn. It was a performance worthy of the Cantabile Choir’s reputation. While all the young women of the choir were amazing, the soloists were exceptional in their performances, showing amazing confidence and poise for young women of 16 and 17.

Cantabile Choir perform under the tutelage and direction of Ms Susan Gouchee, who from all accounts is an inspiration to the young women of the Cantabile Choir. Special congratulations must go to the four captains who lead Cantabile: Hannah Gassman, Sarah McAlpine, Kirsten Stallard and Gemma Lillis. Obviously, this level of excellence would not be possible without the support of the parents, the Cantabile Supporters Group, led by president Rob McAlpine.

Cantabile is the first Australian choir to win medals at the World Choir Games, winning three silver medals for Australia at the 2004 Choir Games and three silver medals at the 2006 games. The choir will head to the 2008 World Choir Games at Graz, Austria, where I am sure they will represent this state well. When they are overseas, the Cantabile Choir represent our state as honorary ambassadors for Queensland Tourism. I could not think of any better ambassadors for Queensland, our culture and our youth, to be seen by those overseas.

Cantabile even sing an amazing song written by director, Susan Gouchee, There’s No Place Like Queensland, which is about the natural and cultural beauty of our state. This is an amazing song that shows a great deal of pride in our state. This is a song that is a great advertisement for Queensland. The Cantabile Supporters Group and I will be talking to Tourism Queensland in the coming weeks to see if this song, performed by Cantabile, can be used in their next advertising campaign. That would be a great credit to Cantabile, Canterbury College and our state.

Noosa Electorate, Flooding Mr ELMES (Noosa—Lib) (7.52 pm): I rise tonight to speak about the recent extraordinary rainfall that fell across my electorate, together with the flooding of the Noosa River, which threatened homes and businesses. As many members would know already, Noosa received the worst storm and flooding since 1992. The only reason the flood damage was not worse was the excellent work of the local authorities, the Noosa and Maroochy communities and especially our SES volunteers. In fact, reports say that the total rainfall was more than 950 millimetres over the week and that floodwaters rose by 1.7 metres.

In the face of this terrible adversity, the community banded together to fight for their homes and those of their neighbours. It is in times of adversity that the core Australian values of mateship, hard work and sense of community stand out most clearly. So what is a community? Is it just a group of people who live close to each other? No. I think a community is forged when people stand together in good times and bad, helping each other out when needed to overcome mutual hardship.

On behalf of all the residents in the Noosa electorate, I would like to thank Ray Kelly, deputy chair of the Noosa council disaster committee; Ron Thomas, the deputy chief executive officer of the Noosa Council disaster committee; Dave Hanchard, the Noosa shire local controller for the SES; Fred Reuter the SES controller Maroochy shire; and the Maroochy and Noosa council staff themselves who, together with the external workforce, made themselves available 24 hours a day during the fight against this terrible disaster. Their efforts saved many within the electorate from far greater harm. I and each and every resident owe them a great deal of thanks.

I give special thanks to the emergency services workers who go above and beyond their work duties to help and care for those affected. I refer to the fire services and rural fire services, the ambos, the Energex crews, the Coast Guard, Surf Life Saving, the boating and marine crews, the Queensland Police Service and the amateur radio people who helped enormously. I also give thanks to the 06 Sep 2007 Adjournment 3207 hinterland residents, especially those at Boreen Point who organised the backhoe to get the general store equipment and stores up to higher ground and over to the fire station so that people could purchase supplies while the township was cut off due to flooding.

Over the past couple of days it has been raining heavily once again and as I speak our SES personnel and other volunteers are once again away from their families and risking their lives so that others in our community can be safe. As a way of thanks, I intend to have plaques prepared for presentation to the SES in both Noosa and Maroochy. They certainly deserve it.

Mansfield Electorate, Road Upgrades Mr REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (7.55 pm): I, like all south siders, find it pretty frustrating getting stuck in traffic whenever we use Mount Gravatt-Capalaba Road or Kessels Road. Having an electorate office located on that road, I use it often. Sometimes it feels like I have driven into a car park instead of a main road. Kevin Rudd’s announcement that, if elected, funding will be provided for Kessels Road to be tunnelled underneath Mains Road is the greatest announcement for the south side area since the South East Busway was built. This intersection upgrade will greatly improve traffic flow all the way past Garden City in the east, past QEII Hospital in the west, the freeway exit to the north and Sunnybank in the south.

Study after study has shown that the two major causes of local traffic chaos are, firstly, large interstate trucks using these roads as a shortcut and, secondly, the Kessels and Mains roads intersection, which is the busiest in Brisbane. Since 30 July this year trucks using Mount Gravatt- Capalaba and Kessels roads as a shortcut have been banned. Already 32 truckies have been caught and nearly 1,000 trucks per week have been removed from these roads.

Both Kerry Rea, the Labor candidate for Bonner, and particularly Graham Perrett, the Labor candidate for Moreton, have worked with me to ensure that Kevin Rudd understands how important this major upgrade is to the people of our local south side communities. While I was delighted on Monday to hear this announcement, I was flabbergasted by the comments of the Liberal member for Moreton, Mr Gary Hardgrave. Mr Hardgrave is a person who not only talks a lot but also delivers nothing. He has now been shown up as a fraud by saying that this plan will not work when he was promising the same upgrade during the 2004 federal election campaign. For him to continue to peddle the untruth that the federal Labor planned upgrade would attract more trucks to the area simply ignores the fact that it cannot and it will not, as we now have the truck ban in place and we are fining people as we speak.

One question I must ask is: why is Mr Hardgrave going back on his 2004 election commitment and also continuing to peddle porkies suggesting that the plan will increase the number of trucks? The truth is that he has failed to get Mr Howard to fund it so he believes that the only way he can try to save his political career is to tell untruths and knock the proposal of which he was once a supporter.

The time is up for Mr Hardgrave. The local community want actions, not words. I ask the residents of the south side a simple question: if we leave this intersection as it is now, what do they think it is going to be like in another 10 years? We must act now and that action starts at the federal election. I encourage every resident on the south side to vote for Kevin Rudd’s team and help fix this major traffic problem. They need to support Graham Perrett in Moreton and Kerry Rea in Bonner. As the Big Brother house says, it is time to go, Gary Hardgrave.

Warrant Officer Class 2 Keith Payne VC Mr FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (7.58 pm): I rise to bring to the attention of the House a brilliant soldier called Warrant Officer Class 2 Keith Payne VC, who is featured in Who’s Who in Australian Military History. Keith Payne was born at Ingham, Queensland, on 30 August 1933. He attended Ingham State School and later became an apprentice cabinet-maker. Dissatisfied with working as a tradesman, Payne joined the Army in August 1951 and was posted to the 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment in September the following year. Payne served with his unit in Korea between April 1952 and March 1953. He married Florence Plaw, a member of the Women’s Royal Australian Army Corps, in December 1954.

He was promoted to corporal the following year and returned to operational duties when he joined the 3rd Battalion in February 1960. Payne served in Malaya with this unit and in 1965, now a sergeant, he joined the 5th Battalion. In June 1965, by now a company sergeant-major, Payne undertook officer training. In February 1967 he was posted to Papua New Guinea where he served with the 2nd Pacific Islands Regiment. He remained there until March 1968 when he returned to Brisbane. On 24 February 1969 he was appointed to the Australian Army Training Team in Vietnam. 3208 Adjournment 06 Sep 2007

In May that year he was the commanding officer of the 212th Company of the 1st Mobile Strike Force Battalion when it was attacked by a strong North Vietnamese force. His company was isolated and, surrounded on three sides, Payne’s Vietnamese troops began to fall back. Payne, by now wounded in the hands and arms and under heavy fire, covered the withdrawal before organising his troops into a defensive perimeter. He then spent three hours scouring the scene of the day’s fight for isolated and wounded soldiers, all the while evading the enemy who kept up regular fire. He found some 40 wounded men, brought some in himself and organised the rescue of the others, leading the party back to base through enemy dominated terrain. Years later, asked whether he was afraid, Payne replied, ‘My God, yes, I was.’

Payne’s actions that night earned him the Victoria Cross. He was evacuated to Brisbane in September suffering from an illness, receiving a warm reception at the airport before entering hospital. In January 1970 Payne was posted to the Royal Military College Duntroon as an instructor. Keith Payne received his VC from the Queen aboard the Royal Yacht Britannia in Brisbane. I am proud that that VC that he was awarded is now found in the Maryborough Military and Colonial Museum which is a brilliant local military museum and one of the only places—certainly around this neck of the woods—that one can actually see a VC in that wonderful display.

Amberley State School

Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (8.01 pm): Tonight I want to brief the House on developments concerning the relocation of the Amberley State School and other important community assets in my electorate of Ipswich West. Earlier this year I became aware, as did many of the residents of the local area, that the Amberley State School and other critical community infrastructure would be forced to close or relocate due to the impending expansion plans of the RAAF base.

It is important at this stage to put on the record the fact that no-one from the Ipswich community would for one moment have concerns about the expansion of the RAAF base. On the contrary, the RAAF has proved over many years that it is an important member of the Ipswich community and contributes to our area greatly both socially and economically. Rather, I believe that when the RAAF gave the state government and the local community its marching orders everyone accepted the fact and immediately set about trying to work out how to best deal with a very difficult situation.

For groups such as the Amberley State School, the local C&K Kindergarten, the Amberley Toy Library, the Girl Guides and Scouts, as well as the local bowls club, post office, petrol station and others, it became imperative that plans be put in place as quickly as possible to try to relocate as much as possible of these key community assets to as close a location as possible. I am very aware of the pressure that the local community has been placed under because of the announcements by the RAAF and this has been exacerbated by the fact that the time frames for their relocation are considered to be unrealistic. However, I should announce that there has been some good news with the Commonwealth government being dragged to the table and agreeing to pay for a new state school to service the children of the Amberley school rather than disperse them amongst the surrounding schools. Since this announcement was made I can advise the House that officers from Education Queensland have been assessing various sites in the Amberley, Willowbank and Yamanto areas to ensure that the money made available is spent to best serve the ones it was made available for—that is, the kids.

On 23 August the minister for education announced that his department had advised him that in their opinion a site in Yamanto was the preferred location for a new state-of-the-art school. Unfortunately, this announcement did not please everyone and since that time a campaign has been waged by some who would rather that the school be located in Willowbank. I understand that some parents would prefer a school in one location as opposed to another, because even I thought that if possible a school located in Willowbank would be effective if it was able to be constructed to the best advantage of the majority of children. However, I ask all parties to listen to the experts with regard to this matter, as I have.

If I have a health issue concerning a hospital in my area I will seek advice from an expert—that is, a doctor from the health department. If I have an issue involving the safety of a highway I will seek the opinion of a engineer from the Main Roads department. As such, it is no different when we talk about where the best place to build a school should be. If we follow this same logic we would ask the Education Queensland experts who are skilled and have experience in these matters and as such we should trust in their advice. I am confident that the issue of the location of the new school will be resolved and that the majority of parents and children will be happy with a new state-of-the-art school. However, I am also confident that a small group will not. 06 Sep 2007 Adjournment 3209

Power, Councillor D Mr STEVENS (Robina—Lib) (8.04 pm): I rise to inform the House of the final outcome in relation to Gold Coast councillor activity in the 2004 local government elections as identified by the CMC inquiry conducted by Mr Robert Needham following inflammatory comments made by the then Beattie government local government minister, Mrs Desley Boyle.

The magistrate ruled that after millions of public dollars of inquiry expense, Councillor David Power, the only Gold Coast councillor facing charges from this multimillion-dollar state government witch-hunt, had no case to answer. I repeat for the masses—no case to answer.

Mr Needham responded to Minister Boyle’s so-called grave concerns about corrupt activity on the Gold Coast by officiating over the most blatantly politically inspired inquiry without one shred of concrete evidence of corrupt activity to justify this enormously expensive navel gazing exercise. Mr Needham’s budget of $36 million and 300 staff could undoubtedly be better spent and directed to more pressing matters involving former Labor Party ministers such as Gordon Nuttall, Merri Rose, Pat Purcell and any others that are yet to come forward.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Robina, some of those matters are before the courts at the moment. You are coming very, very close.

Mr STEVENS: I will not mention it again. I have known Councillor David Power since 1991 when he became a councillor on the Albert Shire Council. I have the utmost respect for his knowledge and character and, including his time as a councillor for the Gold Coast City Council, he has been an enormous contributor to the present and future wellbeing of the city that I love. As deputy mayor for the last seven years, he has played an integral role in the planning and development of the Gold Coast and has been the glue that held 14 disparate councillors together to make such momentous decisions as the groundbreaking Northern Wastewater Treatment Facility and the desalination plant at Tugun that may save the Labor Party’s bacon for emergency water supplies to Brisbane. He was the driving force behind the development of the Coomera Town Centre and the driving force behind the Gold Coast- Albert shire development corridor that allowed thousands of new people to come to the Gold Coast and at the same time protected the hills, valleys and natural environment of the Gold Coast hinterland.

I hope for the sake of the Gold Coast that Councillor Power is not lost to his public service duty, although I would completely understand if he is fed up with being hounded by the Beattie Labor government and its mercenary head-hunting crusaders. I note that he has recovered his legal costs by award from the judges in these matters against the CMC and others. I wish him well in his future career choices.

Public Art in Hervey Bay Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (8.07 pm): On Sunday, 16 September a group of committed people known as Art for Earth will stage a magnificent, beautiful and important piece of public art in Hervey Bay. World-renowned Hervey Bay artist Jorge Pujol, along with Robert Garland and Sarah Bonner and a team of volunteers, is currently putting the finishing touches on a 5,000 candle public art installation. It will be a giant representation of a humpback whale and calf covering some 3,000 square metres at Dundowran Beach. Jorge has achieved an international reputation for these candle installation artworks and has travelled around the world working with Amnesty International on its Stop Torture campaign. I am certainly looking forward to seeing this installation which will be on the beach at Dundowran in 10 days time. It is absolutely wonderful to see local Hervey Bay people stepping up to the plate to try to protect our humpbacks from the ravages of the outrageous so-called Japanese scientific whaling ships. This Christmas will see a fleet of boats dispatched from Japan with the specific intention of taking 50 of the humpback whales which are currently in rest and play in the waters of Hervey Bay. The actions of Jorge, Robert, Sarah and the others who are working on this stand in stark contrast to the mealy-mouthed efforts of federal National Party politicians like Paul Neville, who have stood back and washed their hands of it and said, ‘Well, nothing much can be done. We’ve been to the International Whaling Commission and that is how it is.’ The problem with people like Mr Neville is that he does not understand that the International Whaling Commission is not an environmental body; it is a whale-hunting body. It is time for concerned citizens everywhere to get behind Kevin Rudd’s call to do more to get us into the International Court of Justice and start enforcing our national territorial borders in the Southern Ocean. In the last 10 years, some 400 humpbacks have been taken in Australian waters. It is not good 3210 Adjournment 06 Sep 2007 enough for the Australian government to enforce our borders to the north and pick up Indonesian fishermen who encroach there—although of course that should be done—while at the same time turning a blind eye to Japanese fishermen in the Southern Ocean taking our humpbacks.

The Labor candidate for Hinkler, Gary Parr, has been active by running a petition. A few weeks ago at the whale festival he got several thousand signatures in a couple of hours. It is absolutely essential that everyone does everything and does not just adopt the attitude that it is someone else’s problem. If that happened, those whales that are frolicking in Hervey Bay now will not be there next year.

Death of Ms M Mitchell

Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (8.11 pm): Tonight I would like to share a story with this House, a story that is not unfamiliar to those who are privileged to sit in this parliament and serve our communities. There is no-one in this chamber who can claim to have made it here on their own. We are here because of hard work by committed, loyal and dedicated family members, friends, party members and supporters.

Today I pay tribute to a friend and party member who was dear to me and dear to a lot of my colleagues both past and present. Her name was Marion Ann Mitchell and she was born on 20 October 1940. Sadly, Marion passed away last week on 27 August at the age of 66 after a long battle with cancer. To her mother, Eileen, go my sympathies and those of the entire Queensland Nationals. Eileen will miss her daughter dearly, as will Marion’s son Stuart, his wife Deborah and their new daughter Ava. Our sincere sympathies also go to Marion’s sisters, Maureen and Diane, and their families.

It is so easy to say that someone worked ‘for you’, but in the case of Marion Mitchell you have to say that she definitely worked ‘with you’. This was the case for me. It was the case for my friends not in this chamber now, former premiers Rob Borbidge and Russell Cooper, and she was also a dear friend of Penny Cooper. Prior to working with Mike Horan, Marion ran her own business and before that worked extensively for the Queensland Nationals organisation, proving herself to be an invaluable and irreplaceable asset to Sir Robert Sparkes and, over the years, the entire National Party. That was underlined earlier this week when former Queensland Attorney-General, Paul Clauson, gave her eulogy at St John’s Cathedral here in Brisbane.

You only had to meet Marion once to remember her. I can recall vividly the very day and the very spot I first met her. It was Mackay in 1988 at the party’s conference. As we recall that period in history, there certainly was not a lot of humour amongst Nationals, but Marion had a humour all right. It was a trademark humour that was brutal, but brutal in the nicest way imaginable. She had a frankness about her that was refreshing in a political environment so often dominated by ‘yes men’. And she had a soft spot, almost an angelically caring attitude that she could quickly counterbalance by giving you a good verbal clip around the ear if you did something stupid.

Politics, on all sides, is so often dominated by the wannabes, the so-called crack political advisers, crack media operatives and crack campaigners. But Marion was one of those who actually understood the basics. She understood that to win an election was a seat-by-seat strategy and she understood that to win a seat you needed to get the basics right. ‘Do you know how to scrutineer?’ she would ask. ‘Do you actually know how to stop a vote going to Labor that should be yours? How many doors have you knocked and show me on a map? Are your posters printed? Are your pamphlets printed? Have you lodged them with Australia Post?’ And of course she always knew the answer to these questions before you and better than you.

Marion is going to be dearly missed by us all. So many of us on this side of the House owe our political careers to her, and we owe our enormous thanks for her deep friendship. We shall miss her. Rest in peace, Marion Mitchell.

Adjournment Speech

Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (8.14 pm): Due to the lateness of the hour, I will not do my adjournment speech tonight so that the staff can go home. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 8.14 pm. 06 Sep 2007 Attendance 3211

ATTENDANCE Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Copeland, Cripps, Cunningham, Darling, Dempsey, Dickson, Elmes, English, Fenlon, Finn, Flegg, Foley, Fraser, Gibson, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hobbs, Hoolihan, Hopper, Horan, Jarratt, Johnson, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Knuth, Langbroek, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee Long, Lee, Lucas, McArdle, McNamara, Male, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nicholls, Nolan, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Pratt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Rickuss, Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Seeney, Shine, Simpson, Smith, Spence, Springborg, Stevens, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson

GOVERNMENT PRINTER, QUEENSLAND—2007