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 Tuesday, 10 February 2009

MOTION ...... 1 Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders ...... 1 ASSENT TO BILLS ...... 1 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 4 December 2008, from Her Excellency the Governor to the Speaker advising of assent to a bill on 4 December 2008...... 1 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 11 December 2008, from Her Excellency the Governor to the Speaker advising of assent to bills on 11 December 2008...... 2 MOTION OF CONDOLENCE ...... 2 Murray, Mr JC ...... 2 Tabled paper: Poster titled ‘The Man selected by BOTH Parties!’...... 4 MOTIONS OF CONDOLENCE ...... 5 North Floods ...... 5 Victorian Bushfires ...... 5 MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST ...... 16 Expenses of Office of the Leader of the Opposition; Queensland Economy ...... 16 Tabled paper: ‘Public Report of Office Expenses, Office of the Leader of the Opposition for the period of 1 July 2008 to 31 December 2008’...... 16 Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Use of privately funded air-travel by Premier, Government Ministers & Opposition Leader for the conduct of their parliamentary work: January 2008 to February 2009’...... 16 Rockhampton Library ...... 17 Sunshine Coast Industrial Park ...... 18 Tabled paper: Photograph of four-lane entrance to Sunshine Coast Industrial Park...... 18 Roads Infrastructure ...... 19 Queensland Economy ...... 20 Floods ...... 20 Waterford Electorate, Infrastructure Program ...... 22 North Queensland Floods, Queensland Rail ...... 22 Victorian Bushfires and North Queensland Floods; Queensland Economy ...... 23 North Queensland Floods ...... 24 South-East Queensland Storms, The Gap ...... 25

M F REYNOLDS N J LAURIE L J OSMOND SPEAKER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER Table of Contents — Tuesday, 10 February 2009

TELECOMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION BILL ...... 26 First Reading ...... 26 Tabled paper: Telecommunications Interception Bill...... 26 Tabled paper: Telecommunications Interception Bill, explanatory notes...... 26 Second Reading ...... 26 ADOPTION BILL ...... 27 First Reading ...... 27 Tabled paper: Adoption Bill...... 27 Tabled paper: Adoption Bill, explanatory notes...... 27 Second Reading ...... 27 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AMENDMENT BILL ...... 31 First Reading ...... 31 Tabled paper: Industrial Relations Amendment Bill...... 31 Tabled paper: Industrial Relations Amendment Bill, explanatory notes...... 31 Second Reading ...... 31 SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE ...... 32 Report ...... 32 Tabled paper: Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, Alert Digest No. 1 of 2009...... 32 Tabled paper: Submission, dated 13 January 2009, to the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee from the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties relating to the Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008...... 32 PLANNING (URBAN ENCROACHMENT—MILTON BREWERY) BILL ...... 32 Second Reading ...... 32 Tabled paper: Copy of Environmental Protection Agency Permit number IPDE00918308, dated 12 May 2008, relating to property at 185 Milton Road, Milton...... 49 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 14 November 2008, from the Deputy Director-General, Planning Group, Department of Infrastructure and Planning addressed to ‘the resident’ relating to development in Milton...... 49 Tabled paper: Deputy Premier’s amendments to be moved during consideration in detail of the Planning (Urban Encroachment—Milton Brewery) Bill and explanatory notes to those amendments...... 50 Consideration in Detail ...... 50 Clause 1, as read, agreed to...... 50 Clause 2 (Commencement)—...... 50 Clause 2, as amended, agreed to...... 50 Clauses 3 to 7, as read, agreed to...... 50 Clause 8 (Restrictions on particular legal proceedings)— ...... 50 Clause 8, as amended, agreed to...... 50 Clauses 9 to 16, as read, agreed to...... 50 Schedules 1 and 2, as read, agreed to...... 50 Third Reading ...... 51 Long Title ...... 51 CRIMINAL PROCEEDS CONFISCATION AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL ...... 51 Second Reading ...... 51 Consideration in Detail ...... 74 Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to...... 74 Clause 4, as read, agreed to...... 74 Clauses 5 to 19, as read, agreed to...... 74 Clause 20, as read, agreed to...... 75 Clauses 21 to 24, as read, agreed to...... 75 Clause 25, as read, agreed to...... 75 Clauses 26 to 30, as read, agreed to...... 75 Clause 31, as read, agreed to...... 75 Clauses 32 to 55, as read, agreed to...... 75 Clause 56, as read, agreed to...... 76 Clause 57, as read, agreed to...... 77 Clauses 58 to 67, as read, agreed to...... 77 Clause 68, as read, agreed to...... 77 Clauses 69 and 70, as read, agreed to...... 77 Clause 71, as read, agreed to...... 80 Clauses 72 and 73, as read, agreed to...... 80 Clause 74 (Amendment of s21 (Grounds for suspension, cancellation or refusal to renew))- ...... 80 Clause 74, as amended, agreed to...... 80 Clause 75, as read, agreed to...... 80 Clause 76, as read, agreed to...... 80 Clauses 77 to 86, as read, agreed to...... 80 Third Reading ...... 80 Long Title ...... 80 GREENHOUSE GAS STORAGE BILL ...... 81 Second Reading ...... 81 Table of Contents — Tuesday, 10 February 2009

ADJOURNMENT ...... 82 Noosa Electorate, Fish Abnormalities ...... 82 Health System ...... 83 Cunningham Electorate, Schools; Victorian Bushfires and North Queensland Floods ...... 83 Victorian Bushfires and North Queensland Floods; Volunteers ...... 84 CSIRO Research Centre, Long Pocket ...... 85 Mudgeeraba Interchange ...... 85 Tweed River Entrance Sand Bypassing Project ...... 86 Gaven Electorate ...... 86 Bundaberg Base Hospital ...... 87 Victorian Bushfires and North Queensland Floods; Rozis, Ms R ...... 87 ATTENDANCE ...... 88 10 Feb 2009 Legislative Assembly 1 TUESDAY, 10 FEBRUARY 2009

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

MOTION

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (9.31 am), by leave, without notice: Given the dire and tragic circumstances that far-north Queenslanders find themselves in and the appalling, horrific events in Victoria as a result of the worst bushfires in the history of this country, I move— That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended to enable the order of business for this day’s sitting until 2.30 pm to be as follows— • messages from the Governor; • condolence motion for a former member; • condolence motion regarding the Victorian fires and a condolence motion regarding the north Queensland floods (cognate debate, 1 hour); • matters of public interest (1 hour); and • introduction of government bills. After the introduction of government bills, proceedings will be suspended until 2.30 pm, when the normal order of business for a Tuesday’s afternoon and evening sitting will resume. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

ASSENT TO BILLS Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have to report that I have received from Her Excellency the Governor letters in respect of assent to certain bills, the contents of which will be incorporated in the Record of Proceedings. I table the letters for the information of members. The Honourable M.F. Reynolds, AM, MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Parliament House George Street QLD 4000 I hereby acquaint the Legislative Assembly that the following Bill, having been passed by the Legislative Assembly and having been presented for the Royal Assent, was assented to in the name of Her Majesty The Queen on the date shown: Date of Assent: 4 December 2008 “A Bill for An Act to amend the Property Law Act 1974 for a particular purpose” This Bill is hereby transmitted to the Legislative Assembly, to be numbered and forwarded to the proper Officer for enrolment, in the manner required by law. Yours sincerely Governor 4 December 2008 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 4 December 2008, from Her Excellency the Governor to the Speaker advising of assent to a bill on 4 December 2008 [4985].

The Honourable M.F. Reynolds, AM, MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Parliament House George Street BRISBANE QLD 4000 I hereby acquaint the Legislative Assembly that the following Bills, having been passed by the Legislative Assembly and having been presented for the Royal Assent, were assented to in the name of Her Majesty The Queen on the date shown: Date of Assent: 11 December 2008 “A Bill for An Act to provide for the recognition of carers and the important contribution they make to the community” 2 Motion of Condolence 10 Feb 2009

“A Bill for An Act to amend the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997, the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980, the Churches of Christ, Scientist, Incorporation Act 1964, the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Act 2003, the Fair Trading Act 1989, the Introduction Agents Act 2001, the Liens on Crops of Sugar Cane Act 1931, the Partnership Act 1891, the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000, the Residential Services (Accreditation) Act 2002, the Retail Shop Leases Act 1994, the Retirement Villages Act 1999, the Second-hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act 2003, the Security Providers Act 1993, the Tourism Services Act 2003 and the Travel Agents Act 1988 for particular purposes” “A Bill for An Act to provide for the issue to an adult of a card that may be used as proof of of its holder, and matters relating to the card, and to amend the Liquor Act 1992 and the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Act 1998 for related purposes” “A Bill for An Act about residential tenancy agreements, rooming accommodation agreements, and related matters” “A Bill for An Act to amend the Duties Act 2001, Electricity Act 1994, First Home Owner Grant Act 2000, Fuel Subsidy Act 1997, Government Owned Corporations Act 1993, Integrated Planning Act 1997, Land Tax Act 1915, Liquor Act 1992, Liquor and Other Acts Amendment Act 2008, Payroll Tax Act 1971, Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004, Racing Act 2002, South Bank Corporation Act 1989, South Bank Corporation By-law 2004, Water (Restructuring) Act 2007, State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971, Statutory Authorities (Superannuation Arrangements) Act 1994, Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990 and Taxation Administration Act 2001 for particular purposes” “A Bill for An Act to amend the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, the Tow Truck Act 1973, the Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994, the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 and the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 for particular purposes” “A Bill for An Act for the identification, registration and management of cats and dogs and to amend the City of Brisbane Act 1924 and the Local Government Act 1993 for particular purposes” These Bills are hereby transmitted to the Legislative Assembly, to be numbered and forwarded to the proper Officer for enrolment, in the manner required by law. Yours sincerely Governor 11 December 2008 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 11 December 2008, from Her Excellency the Governor to the Speaker advising of assent to bills on 11 December 2008 [4986].

MOTION OF CONDOLENCE

Murray, Mr JC Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.33 am): I move— 1. That this House desires to place on record its appreciation of the services rendered to this state by the late John Chester Murray, a former member of the Parliament of Queensland and the Parliament of ; and 2. That Mr Speaker be requested to convey to the family of the deceased gentleman the above motion, together with an expression of the sympathy and sorrow of the members of the Parliament of Queensland in the loss they have sustained. John Chester Murray was born on 31 December 1915 in Malvern, Victoria and was educated at Lubene Preparatory School and The King’s School in . After leaving school, the young man became a farmer and grazier and was a renowned breeder of Santa Gertrudis and Brahman cattle at a stud farm in Ingham. During World War II, Mr Murray served in the 2nd Australian Imperial Force in the 2nd/13th Infantry Battalion and was twice mentioned in dispatches. In January 1958 he was made a member of the Order of the British Empire in recognition of his military service. That same year, Mr Murray was also elected as a member of the House of Representatives by winning the federal seat of Herbert for the Liberal Party—a seat that he held until he was defeated at the 1961 federal election. After moving to Brisbane, Mr Murray was elected to the Queensland Legislative Assembly by winning the seat of Clayfield for the Liberal Party at the state election of June 1963. It was a seat that he was to hold until his resignation in 1976. A service for the late John Chester Murray was held on 2 February 2009 at Parkview Chapel in Nerang. Like so many people who have served time in this House, Mr Murray made a contribution that will be remembered by many. There are few people in this country who have had an opportunity to serve in both the federal parliament and the state parliament of their country. I pay tribute to Mr Murray for the work that he did in public life. I take this opportunity to extend my sympathy and that of this House to Mr Murray’s family and to his friends. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (9.35 am): I join with the Premier in this condolence motion for John Chester Murray. I rise to speak on the passing of John Murray, a single-term federal member for the north Queensland seat of Herbert, but best known as a long-serving and forthright Liberal state member for Clayfield. John Murray won the federal seat in 1958 but lost the seat after one term and then went on to win the seat of Clayfield in 1963. He was strong minded and certainly never a quiet backbencher. He had many notable stoushes, not just with the Labor Party and particularly Brisbane’s Lord Mayor at the time, Clem Jones, but also with his own leader, Sir Gordon Chalk. 10 Feb 2009 Motion of Condolence 3

John Murray served in this House for 13 years—from 1963 until 1976—and, while he was a Liberal member representing an inner-city seat, he was a strong advocate for Queensland’s rural industries. He was passionate about processing farm products here in Queensland. He was also passionate about developing secondary industries and fostering exports. He was also a strong supporter of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s ultimately successful push for Queensland to abolish death duties. John Chester Murray was born in Melbourne on New Year’s Eve in 1915. His family had farming interests at Malvern in Victoria and in . He was educated at The King’s School at Parramatta, Sydney. On completing his schooling, he worked on the land and developed a lifelong interest in cattle breeding. In May of 1940, at the age of 24, John Murray enlisted in the 2nd AIF and served with the infamous 2nd/13th Infantry Battalion, known as the Devil’s Own, where he saw active service against Axis forces in the Middle East and then against Japanese forces in New Guinea and as well in the Netherlands East Indies. John Murray was twice mentioned in dispatches and was promoted to captain. At war’s end, John Murray returned to the land—to farming and breeding cattle at Ingham and to family life with his wife, Ruth, who he had married while on leave in 1944. John Murray’s devotion to the military saw him re-enlist in the CMF, in the infantry battalion Kennedy Regiment. He was promoted to major and in 1958 he was awarded an MBE for his services in the Army. John Murray won the federal seat of Herbert in 1958. He lost the seat after one term, but his strong interest to serve in politics was not quashed and in 1963 he won the state seat of Clayfield for the Liberal Party and, as mentioned, held that seat for 13 years. He served as chairman of the Liberals’ rural committee and served on the Liberal Party state executive from 1964 to 1970. John Murray retired from state parliament in March 1976 and he again returned to his love of cattle breeding at Bellanboe, via Tenterfield. John Murray died peacefully, surrounded by his family, on Sunday, 25 January, aged 93. A memorial service was held at Nerang on 2 February where he was warmly remembered as a man of vision, a man devoted to his family and a man who served this state and this country with high distinction. I know all members of the LNP join me in recording our condolences to John Murray’s family and to his very many friends. We salute him for his contribution to parliament and the people of Queensland. Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (9.40 am): I join with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in speaking to this condolence motion. I would like to pay tribute to John Murray, former member for Clayfield, who will be warmly remembered and sorely missed. He passed away at the grand age of 93 on 25 January 2009—almost a century of life, loving and achievement. We should all be so fortunate. Born on New Year’s Eve in 1915, John’s life moved between the pastures of his cattle property, The Orient, outside Ingham, and the politics of a growing state—Queensland. Those politics played out both in and here in George Street in Brisbane. John grew up in the northern suburbs of Sydney and proved to be a leader from an early age, excelling both academically and in sports at The King’s School at Parramatta where he was a student from 1926 to 1930. But like so many people at that time, when the Great Depression hit Australia, John had to leave with his family, leave school and move to the bush. It was here that he learned skills and values that he would call on all his life. He was a stockman, a shearer, a fencer and even an underground miner. Then in 1940, as war came closer to our shores, the 24-year-old John Murray enlisted in the AIF as a private. He travelled on board the Queen Mary with the 2nd/13th Battalion to the Middle East where he was to spend the next three Christmases. Those who know their history know of the tremendous battles fought in the Middle Eastern theatre against Rommel and the Axis powers and how perilously close the then Commonwealth forces came to defeat. Later John was transferred via Australia to New Guinea and then the Netherlands East Indies, what we call . In 1942 John was commissioned and by war’s end in 1945 he had been twice mentioned in dispatches for gallantry and had risen to the rank of captain. It was during wartime in 1944 that John married Ruth. They were engaged on Sunday, 8 April and married five days later—on the 13th—as many people were in those times. The whirlwind of engagement and marriage was the foundation of six decades of married life for John and Ruth, who were devoted to each other and their family. When the Japanese surrendered in 1945 and John returned to Australia’s shores he immediately took his bride to western New South Wales to work the land he loved. But he was always worried about the arid and dry land and its ability to sustain broadacre pasture. He always felt that you could work that type of land as well as anyone, have the best flock or herd, do everything right and still be at the mercy of the gods of the weather. Abundant pasture was always his mantra. Here is a quote from a biography about him— The west was a dead end for me. I could not bear to think that my life would be controlled by drought, no hope of pasture improvement. We could fine tune our merino flocks but would lose them in the drought as sure as night followed day. 4 Motion of Condolence 10 Feb 2009

Meanwhile there was an enormous shift of emphasis in cattle production in Australia. It was slowly moving but, bound and shackled by the old traditionalists who had come from the south and gradually moved to north Queensland, they floundered on the rocks of reality. They could not breed in the tropics what was born to be bred in a temperate climate. After searching around and inspecting many properties, in 1951 and with four children in tow, John and Ruth headed north and settled on The Orient, a large cattle property near Ingham. Taking a risk, John, along with the help of Dr R B Kelly and Dr Jack Griffith from the CSIRO, ignored the traditional woolly British—Bos taurus—bulls that were being farmed in north Queensland and instead moved to import the more heat resistant, tick resistant Brahman bulls and Santa Gertrudis from Texas in the United States. The Brahmans were heat and tick resistant. They breathed through their skin like horses, unlike the British breeds which have to breathe through their tongues like dogs and have woolly coats. They introduced, this triumvirate, a new form of farming and grazing in north Queensland. They worked on pasture improvement and improved the soils by the use of tropical legumes to improve soil nitrogen and carrying capacity for cattle breeding and beef production. Perhaps in many ways, despite his political career, this is John’s greatest contribution to the state of Queensland: his foresight and willingness to experiment and to bring new ideas into Queensland. At the age of 42 John turned his attention to politics, although the land he loved was never far from his mind. The year of 1958 was an eventful year: he was awarded an MBE in the Queen’s New Year’s Honours List for outstanding military service and was jointly endorsed by both the Country Party and the Liberal Party at the time. Mr Lucas: Oh, back to the future. Mr NICHOLLS: It is interesting that I have here in front of me a poster of ‘The Man selected by BOTH parties!’, and I am happy to pass that around. In fact, I might table that for the interest of members. Tabled paper: Poster titled ‘The Man selected by BOTH Parties!’ [4987]. Mr Lucas: Are you going to put out one with your face on it? Mr NICHOLLS: Perhaps as a forerunner of the times—Clayfield was always ahead of the times— he stood up and was endorsed by both parties. There are also some endorsements. He won the election in 1958 for the federal seat of Herbert but, of course, lost it in the great changes in 1961 which very nearly saw the end of the Menzies government. He was a vocal representative for north Queensland. In 1959 he started the Ginger Group. It was not a creature of state parliament; it actually started in the federal parliament. The Ginger Group took up the fight in both the federal and state parliaments to make the most of the north’s resources and, in return for those resources and that wealth, provide basic services such as roads, power, irrigation and port facilities to support new industries and growth. Some 50 years on it does not seem that much has changed! We might well consider what we are now doing and the things we now talk about and those things that John Murray fought for in 1959. After losing his federal seat in 1961 he entered the Queensland parliament in 1963, where he served for the next 13 years. Once again he proved a vocal advocate for the north as chairman of the Rural Committee and chairman of the North Queensland Coordinating Committee. He was a member of the Liberal Party state executive. As the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, John was not afraid to speak his mind and stand up for what he believed was right. He was, of course, a famous protagonist of the Treasurer of the time, Sir Gordon Chalk—his own party leader. Their differences were often reported widely and the cause of much internal consternation. As the Leader of the Opposition said, he was often found to be in support of the then Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, and most famously on the abolition of death duty charges. Eventually this led to him resigning in 1976 in a spate of resignations at that time and he retired with Ruth back to the country life in New South Wales. However, he subsequently came back to the seat of Clayfield, and it was there that I first met John when I joined the Liberal Party. When I first met John he was a man of impeccable manners, great discretion and firm views. I do not believe that had changed during his life. At the age of 84, with some help from some friends, he attended my first preselection. He was still a prominent participant in Liberal Party politics, both with occasional calls of advice and occasional calls of support. I guess many of us in this House have friends and acquaintances who do that for us and whose wisdom and experience over the years is often useful. Many of us have people who ring up all the time and whose experiences are not that useful, but John Murray was not that sort of person. Mr Lucas: Like Clive Palmer? Mr NICHOLLS: Or Bill Ludwig. He was tactful, he was discreet and he knew when his advice was needed. He lived in a house in Clayfield. During my time in council there was some concern that the stairs at the front entrance of his house might in fact encroach a little bit onto the public domain, but we managed to solve that problem with no great fuss and accommodate an ageing and respected member of our community. 10 Feb 2009 Motions of Condolence 5

He remained an ardent and faithful supporter of the Liberal Party, as I said, for many, many years. A loving husband, father and grandfather, John was known by those he loved as a disciplined man with impeccable manners and infinite patience. He was particularly loved by his grandchildren. John’s commitment to his land and local community were best summed up in an election flyer in which he said— I am convinced that the only way you can be satisfactorily represented is by a resident of your electorate, a man who lives in and works for the good of the community, a man who knows what its problems are simply because he is in constant touch with them. John lived his life in this manner. He was a hard worker who took risks, stood up for what he believed in and loved life and his family; a man who we will all remember. I join with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in extending my condolences to John’s family. I would particularly like to thank his son David and Jill, who also contacted me and provided information for this speech this morning. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Whereupon honourable members stood in silence.

MOTIONS OF CONDOLENCE

North Queensland Floods Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.49 am), by leave: I move— 1. That this House places on record its deep sadness for the loss of life and ongoing problems endured by the people of North Queensland as a result of the recent sustained floods. 2. That this House places on record its appreciation for the efforts of volunteers and emergency and defence services workers for the assistance they have provided during this difficult time. Victorian Bushfires Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (9.49 am), by leave: I move— 1. That on behalf of all Queenslanders, this House places on record its deep sadness and regret at the tragic loss of life and hurt caused to the people of Victoria by the unprecedented bushfire disaster that has occurred. 2. That Mr Speaker be requested to convey to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Victoria the above resolution together with an expression of the sympathy of the members of parliament and people of Queensland for the loss sustained by the survivors and families in this disaster. Mr SPEAKER: Premier, I advise the House that these motions will be treated as cognate motions. Ms BLIGH: Yes. We begin the 2009 parliamentary year in the most sombre of circumstances and we are reminded anew that we live in a country of contrasts and extremes—a country that, in the words of Dorothea Mackellar, confronts us with ‘her beauty and her terror’. Much of our state of Queensland has been hit by devastating floods. As much as 62 per cent of the state, especially in our north and north-west regions, is under natural disaster flood declaration. At the same time, our fellow in Victoria are experiencing the worst fires in recorded history. Since this flood season began in November, in Queensland there have been seven flood related deaths and one man remains missing. On 6 February an 18-year-old Capalaba man drowned after becoming stuck in a stormwater drain during flash flooding at Capalaba. On 1 February a 14-year-old Mount Isa boy died after he was swept away by floodwaters. On 28 January 2009, at Bonny’s Flat near Charters Towers, a 55-year-old man was killed after he lost control of his vehicle while driving through water across the Flinders Highway. On 28 December 2008, at Farleigh following a severe downpour, a six-year-old boy died tragically when he was sucked into a stormwater drain. On 20 November at Forest Hill an 85-year-old woman died after her vehicle was washed away. On 16 November at Chermside a 20-year-old man died after being swept away in a stormwater drain. Added to this tragic loss of life are massive stock losses on many properties. Since 1 January Paluma Dam, halfway between Ingham and Townsville, has received 2,670 millimetres of rain and Hawkins Creek, five kilometres west of Ingham, has received 2,634 millimetres. I think that gives all of us a sense of the magnitude of the water that has fallen into this region. The ‘big wet’ started in the north west. Burketown has now been isolated for three weeks and it is expected that it will be isolated for another four weeks; Normanton has been isolated for three weeks and is expected to be isolated for up to another five weeks, and Karumba the same; Doomadgee has been isolated now for three weeks and is expected to be isolated for at least another two to three weeks; and Bedourie and Birdsville have been isolated for three weeks and face further isolation. In addition, there has been flooding at Giru, Mount Isa, Halifax and Ingham. Twice in the last week Ingham has had a flood height of 12.2 metres, which is equal to the worst floods since 1977. 6 Motions of Condolence 10 Feb 2009

We contrast that with the horrendous heat, rage and tragedy of the Victorian fires. With 173 confirmed deaths as a result of the fires, the people of Victoria are in our thoughts. I have offered Queensland’s condolences to the victims of the Victorian bushfires and I have made a commitment that Queensland will provide all the resources it can to help the Victorian communities rebuild. The Queensland government has also donated $1 million to the Victorian Disaster Appeal to assist victims. In north and north-west Queensland, the early damage estimate for flooding exceeds $190 million. At its peak in Ingham, the number of homes with external inundation numbered 2,900, and more than 50 of those had floodwater through their living areas. Sixty people have been evacuated to emergency accommodation at Ingham State High School. In Karumba and Normanton, 17 homes suffer from inundation, and nine of those homes are flooded throughout. However, the number of claims and the full financial impact of this disaster will only be known once waters recede and repairs begin. I am very pleased at the news this morning that the Herbert River is receding, but I am deeply concerned at forecasts of further rain this week. Our flood response headed by Queensland Police, Emergency Management Queensland, the SES and the Department of Communities, along with community volunteers and the local councils, deserves our commendation. This year the SES has taken 2,388 call-outs. The monthly average for 2008 was 1,030. It is fair to say that our orange army are true-blue Queenslanders! Along with all members of this House I take this moment to acknowledge and sincerely thank the thousands of emergency services personnel, volunteers, local government officials and non-government partners who continue to work tirelessly to assist their fellow Queenslanders. I place on record my thanks and those of this House to all of those people on the ground who are playing their part—our emergency services workers, the SES, the wonderful volunteers, Ergon and government and non-government agencies such as the Salvation Army, Lifeline and the Red Cross. Those wonderful community-minded people have been doing an extraordinary job. Those who are staffing our recovery centres deserve special commendation. I know from personal experience that they offer a very cheerful smile along with a cup of tea. That makes a big difference to people, particularly those who are out of their own homes. All have been fantastic and their efforts are appreciated by all. I am sure the member for Hinchinbrook will agree that local Mayor Pino Giandomenico and his team deserve a big pat on the back. Mayor Pino has not only been a great face for Queensland in national reporting on this issue, but he has also done a simply marvellous job. This is a small council confronted with a very big disaster, and it has risen to the challenge magnificently. One police officer told me they were concerned for Pino’s own health as he tirelessly sets about keeping everyone else on the move and ensuring that his community is kept safe. I make special mention of the media, which has done a great job of ensuring that people know what is happening and providing sufficient alerts to allow people to ensure their own safety. For the first time, ABC Ingham has been operating. This is the portable radio station that was developed following Cyclone Larry. In the state’s north ABC Radio has been undertaking continuous local radio coverage for the best part of a week. The team in Ingham and those at ABC Radio 630 Townsville deserve special recognition. ‘Well done!’ to station manager Theresa Rockley-Hogan and all of her team. Unfortunately, the flooding might not be over yet and weather warnings remain throughout much of the state. However, every cloud has a silver lining and I can only hope that the long-term benefits of this rain, after such a long period of drought in some areas—particularly for our primary producers who, in some cases, have seen their dams empty for more than a decade—will eventually compensate for the costs. Food and medical supplies have been airlifted to isolated towns and relief staff have travelled to impacted regions to relieve their colleagues. Aerial surveillance also continues throughout the north to determine the extent of losses. My government will continue to work with primary producers, businesses, communities and relevant local governments to develop recovery plans. I have personally been in contact with rural producer groups including AgForce, and will continue to do so. I have also been working closely with the Prime Minister to ensure that Queenslanders have all the support they need. Defence Force has assisted in the supply and delivery of food to affected areas, and an disaster recovery payment has been made available. I am always heartened to see the strength of community spirit through disasters such as this. On 6 February I established the Premier’s Disaster Relief Appeal Fund for those who can assist by donating money to those in need. I launched this appeal with a contribution of $500,000 from the state government. I thank all those who have made a contribution to date, and I urge other Queenslanders to dig deep, including those in this House, to lend a hand where we can. Although much of Queensland’s emergency resources are occupied with these floods, we are mindful of the scale of the tragedy that is unfolding in Victoria. We do have resources to provide support, such as specialist medical, firefighting and pathology assistance as needed by Victoria. I am pleased to advise the House that Queensland Health has offered to provide specialist burns surgeons and nurses, mental health counsellors and forensic pathologists and to accept any burns victims who need specialist treatment into our hospitals. Victoria has accepted this offer, and we currently have a burns surgeon and three burns nurses on a six-hour stand-by, ready when needed. 10 Feb 2009 Motions of Condolence 7

A Queensland Health forensic pathologist who was coincidentally in Victoria at the time is now staying there to provide assistance with disaster victim identification. The Queensland Fire and Rescue Service has 80 specialist firefighters and incident management teams on stand-by, including 25 vehicles, and the Queensland Ambulance Service has also offered specialist paramedics and incident management staff. Last night the Queensland police dispatched eight forensic officers to Victoria. The two teams are made up of three disaster victim investigators and photographers. They are on the ground today and doing much-needed work in the identification of victims. There has been so much pain associated with these disasters that many of us will marvel at how much the human heart can bear. As we hear daily reports of more deaths, in some cases of whole families, our own hearts reach out to those whose lives are being torn apart. As we now face the aftermath of these disasters, we say to the people of north Queensland who are stranded by floodwaters, who are isolated in their homes and properties and in their small communities, to those who have lost everything and who face the long and difficult recovery effort: we will stand by you and we will support you in the weeks and months ahead as you rebuild your lives and your communities. To our friends in Victoria, to those who have lost friends, lost neighbours, lost family, lost children, lost their homes and lost their communities: we offer you the hand of friendship and we hold you in our thoughts as you endure unimaginable suffering, grief and anguish. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.01 am): I join with the Premier in passing on our thoughts and concerns about this extraordinary tragedy which has unfolded across our country in recent days. No-one can even start to comprehend the magnitude of the tragedy that we have seen. Simply, for many people it is absolutely unimaginable. Hopefully it is something that is never, ever going to be repeated in the future of our very great nation. I will start by touching on the experiences of our very own Queenslanders in recent times, in not only the extraordinary floods at Ingham but also the floods that people are enduring throughout the and much of the north-west of Queensland. I had the opportunity last weekend to travel to Ingham and see for myself what those people are experiencing in that area—to understand and appreciate the sheer tenacity, the hope and optimism and the hard work of those people who are involved in making sure they bring relief and look optimistically at rebuilding their community. However, it is important to point out that when I was there on Saturday morning there was a growing mood of despondency and despair on the part of many people, because only the night before had the floodwaters genuinely started to recede from their peak of 12.12 metres but there had been more significant rainfall overnight and they had woken to the fact that the floodwaters were going to rise again to that peak level. Unfortunately, as we know, that level was sustained over a longer period of time because of the extraordinary rainfall even by the standards of far-north Queensland and of Ingham and the Herbert River catchment. I join with the Premier in expressing our concerns and our very fervent hope that predicted rainfall events later this week do not further compound and aggravate the problem for those people. When I stepped off the plane at Ingham I was faced with an immediate logistical exercise—that is, how do you get from the airport into town to have a look around? There had been great support provided by the state and Commonwealth governments in having helicopters available for people who needed to get into town, for people who needed to be evacuated from the area and also for providing basic supplies. When I got near to where the helicopters landed in town I was immediately struck by a sense of great organisation. The work that was being done there by Emergency Management Queensland and by the SES volunteers I think was absolutely nothing short of outstanding. Also, the liaison and cooperation between all levels of government—state, local and federal—is to be absolutely commended. Sometimes we can spend too much time on the partisanship of this job and not necessarily look at what is practically delivered on the ground by those people who are trained and by government at times of extraordinary emergencies. I, like the Premier, would very much like to commend Mayor Pino for his wonderful leadership. For days on end he himself hardly got any sleep. He was saying to me on Saturday morning that when he went to bed on Friday night he was feeling a sense of relief but the next morning he dragged himself out of bed and thought, ‘Here we go again.’ He was there, larger than life, leading his community, providing encouragement and doing what he could to provide the necessary support. I also commend the member for Hinchinbrook, Andrew Cripps, who as the local member has kept me and my team very much up to date with what has been going on in that community. It was very obvious to me that all the government agencies were doing a great job: Emergency Management Queensland and emergency services workers, including ambulance officers, firefighters and police; the role of the Department of Communities in providing support—the emergency recovery centre and the provision of emergency accommodation for people; and the role of the NGOs—Lifeline, Red Cross and all of those organisations who are very much involved and who have the specialist skills and great capability of not only coordinating but also providing support and encouragement to people in such times. I salute them for their contribution. The other community volunteers very much deserve our recognition, as does the Army, which was supplying some of the necessary logistical support throughout. 8 Motions of Condolence 10 Feb 2009

But our hearts, our thoughts and our focus should be very much on not only what might happen later this week but also the rebuilding and recovery phase. As we know from what happened at Emerald and from other natural disasters that we have been subjected to recently in Queensland, it is when the adrenaline burns away, the media attention goes off the situation and a lot of people leave town that people need ongoing support. I note the situation in Brisbane recently, with the significant storm events. As people go through the frustration of having had their homes demolished or structurally damaged in some way and they try to get their life back to some sort of normalcy, they need the support of their neighbours, they do need the support of counsellors, and they do need that ongoing watchful eye of government to make sure that their requirements—whether they are emotional support or physical support—are being properly met. I also encourage the insurance companies to make sure that they are empathetic, sympathetic and compassionate in their approach to fellow Queenslanders. Let us spare a thought as well for those in the gulf and in the north-west who have been enduring weeks of very serious flooding. These people are used to weeks of isolation; in this case it might be months of isolation. So we have to make sure that their needs are attended to as well. Not only is there an issue of human concern; there is also an issue of animal welfare concern, particularly with what is happening with the cattle industry in that area and the fact that animals are going through misery at this time. Let us look at what is happening to our fellow Australians in Victoria. What is happening down there is absolutely horrific beyond imagination. I remember as a 15-year-old looking at the images of Ash Wednesday. I remember that about 70 Australians lost their lives in those horrific fires. I remember being struck at that stage of my life by this unbelievable loss of life and I remember trying to calculate what it meant. We have already lost 100 more than were lost in that event, and who knows where it is a going to end? As the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, said yesterday in the federal parliament, there will be more people who will lose their lives and there will be people who are being treated in specialist burn units who will subsequently succumb to their horrific injuries. What we have to do is send our best wishes, our support, our prayers and any other sort of comfort we can to our fellow Australians in this most difficult time. I am also encouraged by what the Premier has outlined to the parliament, and that is that we do have specialist teams who will be down there helping people recover, helping with victim identification and providing the specialist support that they need through this particular time. This is a reminder to us that we live in an extraordinary country: in the north of our great country we have a situation where people are in flood and in the south we have record temperatures and bushfires which we have never seen before. Lives will be changed forever by this. Whole families have been lost. They have been virtually destroyed. Communities have been destroyed as a consequence of this. They are going to require the greatest degree of support from government and community going forward. These people will live with these scars for the rest of their lives. Again, the rebuilding and the recovery exercise will be absolutely crucial. There are some quotes which I think are necessary to put on the record because they really sum it up from the people who actually went through it. The sheer devastation of the bushfires was summed up by Dr Chris Harvey, a resident of Kinglake, north of Melbourne, who said this— It was a most horrible day. It’s going to look like Hiroshima I tell you, it’s going to look like a nuclear bomb. We have seen it on television, we have read it in the newspapers, and we have heard the verbal descriptions on the radio but I suppose you never really know until you have been through it. Let us look at the tenacity of some people who stayed behind and fought for their property. In the ruined town of Marysville, where virtually every other building lies in charred remains, stands the unscarred Crossways Historic Country Inn. The bar’s owner, Greg Cherry, sent his wife away to safety. He remained by his business to fight the fire with just a bucket in his hands. He fought the flames and won, despite losing his home and another property. He recounts the moments before his battle, saying— I just thought, bugger it, I’m not going, I’m going to stay and try to save this place. We’d put too much into it to let it just go up in flames. Mr Cherry later hid under a bridge holding a soaking towel over his head to protect himself from the flames, but he, too, like many others, have suffered the loss of neighbours and friends. It is my fervent hope, and should be of all of us in Queensland and in Australia, that not only can we recover as quickly as possible from this but also that the necessary steps can be put in place to ensure that these tragic events are never, ever faced by Australians again. Mrs KIERNAN (Mount Isa—ALP) (10.12 am): I rise today to place on record my sincere sympathy and condolences to the people in north Queensland and Victoria on behalf of the Mount Isa electorate and on behalf of my colleagues in this House. During the month of January and up until today, the electorate of Mount Isa and right across the top of Queensland have been subjected to the might of Mother Nature with record rain, floods and cyclones. We have seen major infrastructure damaged, 10 Feb 2009 Motions of Condolence 9 communities cut off for days and weeks—for some going into their fifth and sixth week—and pastoralists and their stock marooned in an inland sea. We have seen the town of Ingham inundated with water, with metres flowing through homes and businesses, and main streets being navigated by boats. Many communities today remain isolated in my electorate and are surrounded by water. We have seen our own emergency services, our volunteers and individuals stretched to the limit. State government and councils have been working hand in hand. Families, friends, neighbours and strangers have been helping each other in their time of need. All the while each and every Queenslander, and indeed Australian, has been bearing witness to unfolding hardship, heroics and sheer resilience through every type of medium—television, radio, internet and print. The community of Mount Isa shared and embraced the tragic loss of the Rysanek family—Glenn, Deb and Jacqui, with Christopher lost in the floodwaters of the Leichhardt River. From the search effort to his funeral last Saturday, our community was at its best. It has also been a sad time for Queensland Rail, which lost two of its workmates tragically in separate incidents in north Queensland. Our deepest condolences go to their families. For young Jeremy Doble, the five-year-old boy taken from the swollen river of Cape Tribulation, our thoughts and prayers go to his dad, Steve, and brother, Ryan. While we are still coping with the twists and turns of Mother Nature, with heavy falls again last night in the north-west, with king tides in the gulf and the continued threat of further severe flooding along the coast, we have stopped in our tracks to watch the absolute utter devastation of the bushfires in Victoria. After hearing one of the early reports over the weekend, many people with whom I have spoken were reduced to tears by the numbers of the loss of life coming out of the devastation. Little did we know that we were witnessing an unprecedented bushfire disaster like no other. This morning we woke to the report of the loss of life climbing to 180, and the number is still expected to increase over the coming days. It is with sadness that we watch in disbelief and wonder constantly how people get through this. How do you ever get over such an experience? How can you lose so much and still have the sheer determination to say, ‘I’m alive and we will rebuild our lives’? To the people of Victoria we convey to you our deepest sympathy for the tragic loss of life and share your hurt and pain. To the survivors and their families, we the people of Queensland send you our thoughts and our prayers. To all the people of north Queensland, we will endure together and come out stronger for this experience. To the efforts of all volunteers, emergency services, defence services workers and everyday Australians one and all: we thank you for your dedication, your commitment and your assistance given during these very difficult times. Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (10.16 am): Mr Speaker, as a fellow north Queenslander, you will be familiar with the resilience of north Queenslanders in the face of adversity. Over the last several days, I have travelled to and from my home to my office in a boat—reminiscent of scenes from Venice, I suspect. But I think the most amazing thing that I have witnessed over the last several days is the ability of people affected by the major flood event in my electorate to see things in perspective. As the bushfire event in Victoria has unfolded, I have been absolutely amazed to hear people around town, who are cleaning out their homes affected by floodwaters, expressing their disbelief, horror and compassion for the people of Victoria and for the people of the north-west of Queensland. I say to the member for Mount Isa and the member for Charters Towers: even while we have been dealing with our own set of circumstances in the Hinchinbrook shire, your constituents have been in our hearts and in our minds given the enormity of the situation in your area of Queensland. All members of this House should be under no illusions that there is a major emergency services effort underway in the Hinchinbrook shire in my electorate of Hinchinbrook. I want to salute the emergency services operating in the Hinchinbrook shire. Their efforts have been truly remarkable over the last 10 days. Queensland Ambulance Service, Queensland Police Service, and Queensland Fire and Rescue Service officers operating in that area, both local officers and officers who have been brought in from across the state of Queensland to assist, have served with distinction. The ministers responsible in this House for those three services should be proud. I want to make a special mention of the swift water rescue team of the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service which over the last 10 days has performed a number rescues in floodwaters in north Queensland. I have had the privilege to be stuck in the airport in Townsville with a couple of those officers who were looking to relieve some of their colleagues in Ingham. We eventually met up in Ingham a couple of days ago. They have been doing remarkable work for which I am truly grateful. The State Emergency Service volunteers deserve a special and separate mention. We should always remember that they are volunteers and that when the going gets tough and we in north Queensland face severe flood events, severe storm events or cyclones they leave their own families and head out into the elements to do the hard jobs that none of us want to do. In Ingham and the Herbert River district they, on many occasions, leave their families who are in difficult circumstances themselves to do their duty. 10 Motions of Condolence 10 Feb 2009

I want to make a special mention of the employees of the Hinchinbrook Shire Council who sometimes get overlooked in these circumstances. Many of the staff are isolated in their own homes throughout the district. Those people who are able to make it into work in town in Ingham are working at truly remarkable levels of endurance and capacity. They are working with a skeleton crew and yet they are maintaining outstanding levels of service to the public in very difficult circumstances. As was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, the charities that have arrived en masse in Ingham—Lifeline, Red Cross and the Salvation Army—are operating the emergency accommodation which is located in the library of Ingham State High School. They have made a magnificent effort supporting over 50 people who have been evacuated from their homes which have been rendered uninhabitable by the floodwaters. The Department of Communities and, more recently, staff from Centrelink have been operating the Hinchinbrook community recovery centre. They are providing immediate assistance to people who, in many cases, have lost almost everything. The assistance from the state government through the natural disaster relief arrangements, the recent announcement by the federal government and support from the Premier’s Flood Relief Appeal will provide the basis for an immediate response to this major flood event. While this support is very welcome, insurance companies will be required to pick up the bill for most of the damage to private property. I have been in contact with the insurance industry which has assured me that it will be able to respond quickly to the needs of affected policyholders in flood affected areas across north Queensland. I have had some very early contact from Suncorp which was excellent. It advised me that as soon as the floodwaters had receded Suncorp had a team of up to 60 assessors mobilised to respond to claims lodged by their customers in the wake of Cyclone Ellie and the active monsoon trough in north Queensland. I contacted the Insurance Council of Australia myself and it has advised me that policyholders in north Queensland who have been impacted by recent floodwaters should contact their insurance companies as soon as possible so that their claims can be assessed quickly and allow the clean-up process and repair work to occur. Today, I call on the insurance industry to act with as much compassion and understanding as possible in the processing of insurance claims coming forward following these events. Although much of the attention over the last few days has been on the Hinchinbrook shire, I am becoming increasingly concerned about flood events in the Cassowary Coast area just north of the Hinchinbrook shire. I have had a number of reports of extensive primary producer crop damage and other people who have been affected by floodwaters in that area. The resilience of north Queenslanders is truly remarkable, but the morale of those in the Hinchinbrook shire was affected to a large degree when the Herbert River rose for a second time in less than seven days to a peak of 12.25 metres. The day that the Premier visited, waters looked to be receding and people were heading out of their homes and into the streets to commence the clean-up of their residences, their business premises and their properties. The morale of people on Saturday after a significant flood event both in the Herbert River valley and in the catchment area of the Herbert River that night—the water started to come back up—was affected and the level of angst in the community was palpable. I am confident that going forward, with the support of the Queensland and Commonwealth governments and with the support that neighbours, families and friends provide to each other in north Queensland, we will come out of this major event stronger and more prepared in the future to respond to these emergency situations. Hon. NS ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services) (10.25 am): It is simply not possible to describe in words the grief of a nation in response to the terrible tragedy unfolding in Victoria—173 lives lost, too many people with severe injuries and the expectation of more loss to come. Today we also mourn the loss of seven Queenslanders confirmed as dead following flooding over the past three months. When Queenslanders went to bed on Saturday night our hearts and thoughts were with the people of north Queensland who were battling severe flooding. Homes were inundated and whole towns were turned into waterways. We were conscious of the heatwave and the bushfire threat in Victoria but nothing could have prepared us for the devastating news we woke to on Sunday morning. This is the most devastating and horrific bushfire ever experienced in Australia. At times like this, the numbers of deaths can be overwhelming. Whether it is the horrific losses in Victoria or the seven confirmed flood related deaths in Queensland, the impact on their families and friends is equally traumatic and difficult to comprehend. Australia is a land of natural beauty but we also face our fair share of natural disasters. On Sunday I visited Ingham with the federal Treasurer, Wayne Swan. As we spoke to local residents about the difficulties they were encountering their thoughts and concerns were focused on the people of Victoria; a great example of the enduring Aussie spirit of mateship and concern for others. Our emergency service workers both full-time and volunteer regularly put their lives on the line to defend life and property. Today our primary thoughts are with the families of the victims of the bushfires and floods but we also extend our thoughts, care and concern to those emergency service workers who 10 Feb 2009 Motions of Condolence 11 fought so valiantly to protect their local communities. In Queensland, I particularly pay tribute to our Queensland Fire and Rescue Service swift water rescue teams who over the past few months have performed dozens of dangerous rescues in raging floodwaters. We also recognise the valiant efforts and the emotional impact these events have on members of the police, fire and ambulance services, SES and rural fire volunteers who together deal with the trauma of the loss of life on a far too regular basis. On behalf of the people of Queensland and all emergency service workers, we extend our sincere condolences to the families of the victims and the brave emergency service workers who risked their lives to protect them and their communities. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—LNP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10.28 am): Heavy rain this summer has caused flooding and devastation to many areas in the north, far-north and north-western Queensland. Many Queenslanders have lost their homes, their businesses, their cars, their pets, their livestock and their livelihoods. With the death of seven Queenslanders, this state faces a real tragedy. But it is in the face of this tragedy that we see the spirit of this great state coming to the fore. We see Queenslanders working in unison to ensure the people in north Queensland not only rebuild and regather their strength but also move forward to build a better north Queensland than they have ever had before. The flooding has caused the banks of many rivers to burst, and the town of Ingham on the Herbert River has been very hard hit, with waters rising to 12.2 metres twice in one week. The floods in the Hinchinbrook electorate have been described as the worst in 30 years, and as the floods begin to recede the long clean-up begins and locals hope that the rain will not return. The , the major highway connecting the north, has been flooded and closed in parts since January this year, causing major disruption to regular highway traffic, including food supplies. Last week 200,000 litres of fuel and 40 semitrailer loads of fresh food had to be loaded onto barges in Cairns to supply Woolworths and Coles for all areas between Cairns and Townsville. The Bruce Highway closures caused supermarket shelves to empty. A roadblock is still in place on the Bruce Highway south of Cardwell and most roads in and around Innisfail have reopened only today. Cattle farmers around the gulf have seen their grazing properties flooded and destroyed. Not only are these Queenslanders cut off from the outside world by floodwaters; graziers are facing a combined loss of around 10,000 head of cattle, with losses estimated at $1 million. Stock are stranded, starving and drowning. To all those who have helped, will help and are helping at this point in time, we say thank you. On occasions those words seem to convey so little, but there are times when they capture a spirit and convey a lot more. This is one of those occasions. This is an event that has wrenched the heart of Queensland, and it is during these times that we see the strength of character and resolve that lies just below the surface of each and every Queenslander. I am certain I convey for all those who have suffered in north Queensland the sense in this House that we will be right behind them to make certain that whatever they need to have done is done. Whilst Queensland suffers the worst floods for some time, we wake this morning to hear that in Victoria there is a death toll from bushfires of 173 people and sadly rising, with some people predicting that more than 200 people will have died by the end of this week. For so many people in Queensland who have moved north, leaving their families and so many of their friends in Victoria, this is a very personal sadness. Those who perished were people who last week were talking with their families and friends, had plans for their future, had things to do and had places to see. These were people who had experiences to live, and these were people who thought of tomorrow as it would come. I share with all honourable members their sadness and sympathy for the tragic loss of life of so many of our fellow Australians. There is a growing sense of helplessness and sadness not only at the coalface in Victoria, where people are fighting fires and the winds that carry that danger further, but also right here in Brisbane and indeed in Queensland. But it is through tragedy and adversity that Australians recognise that, regardless of colour, age or gender, we are united by our growing sense of national pride and identity. This was so evident and reinforced during last month’s Australia Day celebrations. I know there is a genuine commitment by the entire Australian community that if there is something we can do to ease the pain of those suffering we will do it. Sadly, we cannot bring back those who have died and we cannot take away the pain of the survivors. We cannot take away their sense of loss nor the devastation that they are going through and will go through for some considerable period of time. But what we as Australians right across the nation can do is commit to them that they will, with our help, rebuild their lives and livelihoods. Australia is indeed a lucky country. Australia is indeed a country of contrasts. But one thing that unites us is that we are in fact Australians and that we do understand that when the going gets tough we will pull together and make certain, wherever the tragedy is, that we will be there to relieve people’s tragedy, relieve their suffering and provide solace for the future. Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Sport) (10.33 am): I also offer my condolences to the families of those who have lost their lives in Victoria and Queensland over the last few weeks. Last night I approved the deployment of two teams of four 12 Motions of Condolence 10 Feb 2009

Queensland police forensic specialists to assist Victorian police in the gruelling task of identifying those who have lost their lives in the ongoing bushfire tragedy. The eight police deployed to Victoria last night were the very same police who were sent to help the federal government following the tragic bombings in 2005. The extraordinary disaster that continues to unfold in Victoria has shocked us all. As soon as we received the request for assistance from Victoria Police, our police were deployed. They arrived on the ground last night and commenced their arduous work this morning, and the commissioner tells me that he expects them to be there for a long time. Queensland is the world leader in this area of forensics, and each police team consists of three police forensic specialists and a police photographer. The expertise of these police is unquestioned, and some of these police have been recognised for their work in this field with Orders of Australia. The Queensland Police Service has risen to the challenge in the last 10 days, assisting the people of north Queensland during this time of devastation. An additional six police were deployed last weekend to Townsville to assist and coordinate with the State Disaster Management Group. Police have also deployed one civilian to act as a media officer to get the important messages out to the people of north Queensland. Six police from the Public Safety Response Team have also been deployed to Ingham to assist with flood response and coordination efforts and to provide relief to the police in Ingham who are providing 24-hour, around-the-clock assistance to that local community. I also acknowledge the ongoing contributions of the over 1,400 police who are permanently serving in the northern and far-northern Queensland police regions and who are undoubtedly providing a great service above and beyond the call of duty under what can only be described as trying times. I know that the people of north Queensland are appreciative of all of the police efforts during this time and I know that they would join me in offering our collective thanks for that work. I take the opportunity to acknowledge a conspicuous act of assistance that police have provided. Last week four Chinese tourists attempted to cross the flooded Eight Mile Creek on the in their Toyota campervan and were soon washed off the bridge into the swollen creek. The four tourists were all unable to swim and police found them huddled together on their submerged van as the floodwaters surrounded them. Police rescued all four tourists and they were all unhurt apart from some mild hypothermia. I congratulate all police involved in this rescue. It is certainly indicative of the ends that police will go to, often without thought for their own safety, in an attempt to save others. In fact, the House should know that the first police officer to lose his life in Queensland was a police officer from Ipswich who died trying to rescue someone in the swollen Bremer River during a flood. Police in Ingham have even converted holding cells into makeshift bedrooms. But police are not the only officers in my portfolio assisting the people of north Queensland. Low-risk work camp prisoners from Townsville and Rockhampton prison farms will travel to Ingham tomorrow to assist with the flood relief effort. Experienced corrective services officers and 41 prisoners—37 men and four women—will join emergency services crews and the local community embarking on the flood clean-up. We envisaged help would be needed, so I activated contingency plans late last week to prepare prisoner work camps for deployment should north Queensland accept the offer of assistance. This morning 21 prisoners and three supervisors from Rockhampton will travel to Townsville prison in preparation for deployment tomorrow. This prisoner work camp will then leave Townsville Correctional Centre and arrive in Ingham a few hours later. The prisoner work camp crew will be self- sufficient and will take with them clean-up equipment including vehicles, trailers, chainsaws, shovels and gloves and they will work alongside disaster relief crews wherever they are required, as they successfully did in The Gap at the end of last year and for other major clean-up efforts over recent years. This morning we are also dispatching a crew of 24 work camp prisoners and three supervisors from the Correctional Centre. That crew will travel 1,400 kilometres to Townsville in anticipation of a further request for assistance. We will take advice from the State Disaster Management Group, but if need be the extra prisoner work camp could also be on the ground in Ingham by Friday. Work camp custodial officers and prisoners have an outstanding record of providing assistance to communities after natural disasters. At this time last year we had a record number of over 100 prisoners completing storm and flood assistance work in areas including Beaudesert, Mackay and Charleville. It will be tough, hard work and work camp prisoners involved in these assistance efforts have always taken pride in making a real contribution to help a community get back on its feet. The corrections officers who supervise these prisoners are truly resilient, resourceful individuals who work long, hard hours alongside the prisoners, often knee-deep in mud. I have visited many of these clean-up gangs. They are usually given the toughest jobs that no-one wants to or can do. Today I particularly want to place on the public record my thanks to these supervisors, who often do not get any public recognition for the wonderful job they do for us every day of the year, but particularly when they are called out to help. 10 Feb 2009 Motions of Condolence 13

Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (10.39 am): I rise to speak to this condolence motion. We have fires in the south and floods in the north. As we sit here in this room today, we are literally between hell and high water. We cannot for one moment comprehend what these people have gone through—these families who have lost wives, mothers, husbands and children. There is a depth of pain that comes with loss and the way of that loss that no words can do justice. We can sit and watch the horrible views on TV—we can see the burnt-out buildings, the scarred paddocks and the burnt wildlife—but it is the people who touch our hearts and bring tears. It is the people who reach out for each other—and they always will. I hope this country reaches out to everyone in Victoria at this time. There is a wonder in these two adversities that I have picked up, as I hope everyone else has, and that is that no matter the tragedy, the people from the north and the south have been worried about what the other has gone through. People in the north have recognised that the people in the south are worse off. Each reaches out to the other. Another thing that I noticed was that in two instances cellars provided a secure haven for a few people. There will be a lot of very deep analysis over the next few years. I believe it is necessary to consider the use of cellars of some description in areas that are extremely prone to fire, as they are in the south. This inspired me to get on the net and do a lot of research into bushfires. I found instances where lyrebirds have gone into wombat burrows, as have other insects and animals, to try to survive. One constituent rang me to say that in the 1930s a friend of his from Victoria crawled into a wombat burrow and he survived the fires. Low is the way to go, we are always told, when there is a fire. ‘Get down low and go, go, go,’ we tell our children when there is a house fire. So why are we not telling people to go low—to build something in these areas that will protect them? That is one lesson, but only one, that has to be learned from these fires. I take my hat off to the firefighters, the SES, the ambulance services and all the charitable groups and organisations. Words cannot do justice to what they have done, what they have endured and what they will live with for the rest of their lives. The volunteers, upon whom our communities rely so heavily in the good times, have found untold strength in this, the most horrid of times. Other countries are watching Australia and how we handle this situation and they are offering help, as we have for them at times. There is no-one—not a victim, not a family friend; not an Australian, not a person in the whole world—who does not feel for these people today. All I ask is that the depth of feeling that we are all experiencing is accompanied by a generous spirit. My condolences go to every member of both of those communities. Hon. FW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Main Roads and Local Government) (10.43 am): It is with a sense of deep sadness that I rise to speak in this condolence motion. I join with previous speakers in extending my deepest sympathies to the families and friends of those who have lost their lives, their homes and their possessions in these tragic circumstances. The impacts we have seen from nature’s forces during the past month or so—both in north and north-west Queensland and in Victoria— are almost beyond comprehension. In particular, the speed with which bushfires ravaged regional communities in Victoria was as frightening as it was comprehensively destructive. My own senior policy adviser grew up in Victoria and knows the towns of Kinglake and Marysville. He is very familiar with them through visits to those towns during his childhood. He has, like us all, been shocked by the television footage that shows that both of those small communities have been effectively wiped from the map. Coming from a small regional community myself, I fully understand and appreciate the bonds of friendship that are formed among residents. I may be biased, but I think these bonds are often stronger in smaller communities, which means the effects of these types of disasters are even more devastating. I am still trying to comprehend how so many lives could be lost and disrupted in so little time. For those who have survived these bushfires, we all realise that their lives have been changed forever. I just hope and pray that they are able to regain some degree of normality to their lives as soon as possible. Normality is something that the residents of northern Queensland will be looking forward to after more than a month of torrential rain across many areas. The north-west has had once-in-a-lifetime falls, and flooding in the Townsville-Hinchinbrook areas has been described as the worst in 30 years. Being from far-north Queensland, I am used to heavy rainfall during the wet season, but some of the sustained rainfall that we have experienced in Ingham, Townsville and in the north-west has far exceeded that of the usual rainfall during our annual wet season. Fortunately, we have not seen the same loss of life from the north Queensland floods as has been experienced in Victoria, but I am still deeply saddened by the losses we have experienced. Having lived in many affected north Queensland towns, including Kidston, Mount Isa, Ingham and Charters Towers, I know from experience that the Einasleigh, Leichhardt, Burdekin and Herbert rivers can become raging torrents, which is hard to comprehend in the dry. I also know that these communities are very resilient and will be back on their feet soon after the floodwaters recede. 14 Motions of Condolence 10 Feb 2009

Of course, this will also mark the time that road crews from my Department of Main Roads will be hard at work assessing road damage and conducting repairs. They will ensure that the highest-priority works are done as quickly as possible to get freight moving again in the north. I must congratulate the road crews from Main Roads who have been working virtually around the clock during these floods to inspect sites, close roads when necessary and then reopen them as soon as possible. NGO volunteers, Department of Communities staff, our emergency services personnel and council employees deserve our heartfelt thanks for their magnificent contribution in very difficult circumstances. No doubt this dedication will be mirrored right across the region as residents start the hard work of cleaning up flood- damaged properties and getting their lives back in order. We all hope that this will happen quickly and without too many problems. I support the motion. Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—LNP) (10.46 am): I, too, certainly join the other members of this House in supporting the Premier’s motion and also extending my deepest sympathy and prayers to the people of north Queensland who have suffered and lost so much in the recent floods and to the many, many hundreds of families right across Victoria. Australians are reeling from the horror of hearing on the news and reading in the papers what has been happening in Victoria. Personally, I cannot comprehend what those people must be going through. I know we are all feeling the same. The bushfires in Victoria are among the most deadly in a century and a half around the world. These Victorian fires are also the most deadly on record in Australia—the previous worst being the Ash Wednesday fires, which cost the lives of 75 people. This morning we heard that 173 people are confirmed dead. We do not know how many people are in hospital and suffering. However, trauma and tragedy has not only occurred in Victoria; it has also swept across north Queensland because of the floods. We have seen the death of a teenager in Mount Isa, who got swept away in a drain; a Mount Garnet man who died 30 kilometres west of Charters Towers on the Flinders Highway in January; and two men who were swept off the highway in Tully. These are just some examples of the loss of life. But there is also the tremendous trauma that so many people are suffering. We heard the member for Hinchinbrook describing what the people of Ingham have been going through. Our hearts have gone out to all of them. I am from the Burdekin—from the Ayr and Home Hill areas. I have experienced the lower end, shall I say, of the rainfall, but not without the threat of huge flooding as well. Right across the Burdekin people’s thoughts have been with those in Ingham. I note that the member for Hinchinbrook said that he was going from his home to his office in a boat. Last week in one of the conversations I had with him he said that he did not like to bother people for the loan of a boat and much of the time he was walking to work through waist-deep water. That is how people are commuting around Ingham. I commend him for the support that I know he would have given to the people of Ingham and to the mayor, Pino, and all members of the disaster management group. The people who have been forgotten in amongst these floods are the many, many people who live in the far north of Queensland in the remote gulf area. They are used to battling it alone, shall we say, and they are also used to these types of flooding situations that perhaps occur more often in the gulf country than they do lower down. Because of this we do tend to forget them. The major media tends to forget them. But I acknowledge the trauma that they are going through. Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.50 am): I move— That debate on the motions continue until 11 am. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Mrs MENKENS: I have seen stock dying in droughts and I know how horrific it is to watch. I have no doubt that those people living in far-north Queensland would be going through exactly the same thing. I know that Mayor Annie Clarke from Burke has been marooned for quite a long time and has been running her council from her house with floodwaters surrounding her home. I wish to commend the efforts of the Burdekin shire local disaster management group which convened about 10 days ago led by Mayor Lyn McLaughlin. Mayor Lyn McLaughlin has been on call 24 hours a day. I know she has been getting phone calls through the night and she has been ever willing to answer those calls. The local disaster management group has been successful because of the tremendous cooperation between the emergency services, the local council members and those who make up the core group of the Burdekin Community Association. I commend the work they have done. I also wish to make brief mention of the two members of the swift water rescue team who were sent to Burdekin. Thank goodness their services were not required. I am aware of the level of comfort that they gave to the people of the Burdekin just by virtue of their presence. Disaster and danger bring out the strengths and courage of many. That has to be said for members of the SES, whom I salute. They are volunteers who give up their time and take on very dangerous situations in a voluntary capacity. In the Burdekin we have been on the lower end of the rainfall but we have seen the hardy residents of Giru go under major floodwater twice this year. They were well prepared and, as they always do, they come out like ducks and shake their feathers afterwards and get on with their work. I salute their efforts. 10 Feb 2009 Motions of Condolence 15

The flooding has caused havoc on the highway by stopping traffic and supplies, including major medical supplies, going up and down the road. Just last Friday, in fact, when Ayr and Home Hill were cut by Plantation Creek, in the town of Home Hill where I happened to be caught there were well over 150 trucks as well as many cars that were stranded. It was tremendous to see the way the community and the combined services clubs pulled together. They put on a barbecue. I am not sure how many hundreds of people they fed. Community members brought food as well as helping to put it together. I commend the efforts of the people right across north Queensland. Our thoughts and prayers go out to all of the people who are suffering and all those magnificent people who are coping in Ingham. Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Water and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (10.54 am): I start by extending my sympathies to the residents of north and north-west Queensland and, of course, those residents in Victoria affected by two great natural disasters. As Mr Speaker would be aware, this past month has been extremely challenging for the residents of north and north-west Queensland. We are no stranger to summer floods in the north, but this year’s huge deluge has left many towns devastated and hundreds of people without homes. I have lived in north Queensland my whole life and I cannot recall such constant rainfall. At my house we have had about 1.3 metres of rain since New Year’s, but we are fortunate in that we have only received some minor water damage. Others, unfortunately, have not been so lucky. Hundreds of people have been left to pick up the pieces as their homes have been flooded. What is more, the downpour has not just come and gone; communities have had to endure the drenching for weeks and weeks on end, leaving residents in some severely affected towns in limbo as they repeatedly began to pick up their lives only to have the rains return. The vision of the mighty Burdekin Falls Dam in full flow paints a clear picture of the magnitude of this rainfall. During the past week billions of litres of water have spilled over the dam wall. When one considers that at its height the dam was disgorging enough water to fill Sydney Harbour every five hours, it puts into perspective how much rain we have had in north Queensland. But we are a tough bunch in north Queensland. We will get on with it through great resilience. Our community will continue to work together to get through this difficult time, demonstrating the great community spirit that exists throughout north Queensland. Indeed, I have heard a lot of people in my electorate, a lot of people in Townsville since Sunday, saying, ‘It’s okay. We have had a flood, but at least we are not like those poor buggers in Victoria going through the fires.’ Like many people who have spoken today, I single out the SES volunteers who have truly done an outstanding job. I met with the regional coordinator and was impressed with the incredible effort and perseverance of volunteers who have been working in these very tough conditions. I thank them for their dedication to the people of north and north-west Queensland. I thank all Queenslanders who have contributed to the Premier’s disaster relief appeal fund and encourage people to dig deep. Also I advise the House that my good colleague, the minister for communities, Lindy Nelson-Carr, is in Ingham today assisting with those efforts. She sends her condolences and sympathies to the people. This is a difficult time for all Queenslanders, an even more difficult time for Australia, as we struggle to come to terms with the horrific loss of life in the Victorian bushfires. Our hearts go out to all of the families and friends of the victims. Quite simply, words cannot express the magnitude of this tragedy. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (10.57 am): I, too, would like to offer my condolences to those in Victoria affected by the bushfire tragedy. It is hard for many of us so far away to fully comprehend the swiftness and the ferocity of the fires just experienced in Victoria. We do know that they get crown fires down there and that they burn through the tops of trees, unlike those fires we get in the far north. This tragedy has already taken some 170 lives and there have been many injuries, some of which will take years to heal. The number of houses burned to the ground is up around 800. This is an enormous tragedy and our thoughts are with those affected Victorians. The fires contrast enormously with the major flood events in north, north-west and far-north Queensland. Here there have been many losses of property and stock. There are photos coming into my office of huge amounts of stock floating around in floodwaters. Properties have been inundated and, of course, there have been lives lost as well. One of the lives lost was that of Mr Fitzgerald, a constituent of mine from Mount Garnet. He was swept away just west of Charters Towers. I pass on my sympathies to his family. That was a tragedy indeed. In addition, two men were swept away at Tully. They have not yet been found. The floodwaters have blocked roads, affecting people in the wider communities of north, north-west and far-north Queensland. We must not forget those people. I also commend the good work of the emergency services personnel, police and so on who have worked extremely hard to lessen the pain of those affected by these circumstances. My condolences go out to all of those affected in Queensland and Victoria. We know that they will need every assistance in the immediate times ahead and in years to come. Question put—That the motions be agreed to. Motions agreed to. Whereupon honourable members stood in silence. 16 Matters of Public Interest 10 Feb 2009

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST

Expenses of Office of the Leader of the Opposition; Queensland Economy Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.01 am): Again I note the very sombre and bipartisan nature of what we have seen in the parliament this morning, which is totally appropriate given the extraordinary tragedy that has unfolded throughout our nation in recent times. I start by tabling the public report on the expenses of the office of the Leader of the Opposition for the period 1 July 2008 to 31 December 2008. To that I attach a voluntary disclosure of official travel that I have undertaken in my capacity as Leader of the Opposition. The first document is tabled to meet a statutory obligation and the second document is tabled as a voluntary disclosure. Tabled paper: ‘Public Report of Office Expenses, Office of the Leader of the Opposition for the period of 1 July 2008 to 31 December 2008’ [4988]. Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Use of privately funded air-travel by Premier, Government Ministers & Opposition Leader for the conduct of their parliamentary work: January 2008 to February 2009’ [4989]. The government should do exactly the same thing. For there to be consistency in this parliament, members of the government, and particularly government ministers, should be prepared to disclose to this parliament details of the official travel that they have undertaken, even if there is no requirement that it be disclosed under parliamentary pecuniary interest guidelines or from the perspective of disclosure through one’s political party. Unlike the Premier, I understand what a pecuniary interest is. Last year I consulted with the Clerk about the requirements for disclosure. In Queensland the pecuniary interest register guidelines simply state that one must disclose a private personal pecuniary interest. Of course, the issue I raise relates to things that may be provided to a member to assist in the performance of official duties, and that is what we need to concentrate on today. Last year, on all occasions I was asked if I had used private aircraft for travel I said yes, and I gave the number. I ask members opposite—and maybe the Treasurer also can ask some of his colleagues—how many there have been. I look forward to government members producing exactly the same sort of information that I have tabled today. Doing this saves the taxpayers of Queensland. There also needs to be a recognition of logistic support that is not necessarily tilted in favour of the opposition in Queensland. I turn to another issue. I am very pleased that the Treasurer of Queensland is in the chamber. We have heard an— Mr Fraser: You wouldn’t know a statesman if it hit you on the head. Mr SPRINGBORG: This is interesting. Here we have a person who, as a part of a political party, recently sold his ears to developers in Queensland for something like $2 million. They do not disclose who is on their business round table. They do not disclose the nature of discussions that they have had as a part of the special cash-for-ears or cash-for-access deals that we have seen in Queensland. The Deputy Premier of Queensland has been heavying the Townsville regional council to approve the Townsville port terminal development. A major proponent of that development is Craig Gore, who about 12 months ago gave $200,000 to and confessed his undying love for the Labor Party. The other day, when it was drawn to the attention of the Deputy Premier that this person had been a significant donor to the Labor Party and he was then asked why he was pressuring the Townsville regional council to approve particular variations recommended by the government, the Deputy Premier made the extraordinary statement, ‘I did not know that Mr Gore was involved in it.’ Up in Townsville, everyone knows that he is involved. This government cannot be honest. It has sold its ears to the developers of Queensland. Today the government is not prepared to be open and accountable. Today the government is not prepared to disclose what has been discussed in the case of that particular developer or any other developer in its cash-for-access scheme. For the past 11 years this government has taken the people for Queensland for granted and has failed to be open and accountable. The Treasurer has now admitted that the state of Queensland is in recession ahead of the rest of Australia. Government ads state that Queensland is now in recession, along with New South Wales. However, Tasmania, the ACT, the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia are not in recession. It is very interesting that in recent days through government advertising the Treasurer has made the extraordinary concession that Queensland is in recession ahead of the rest of Australia. One has to ask the question: why has Queensland gone into recession ahead of the rest of Australia? Have you been telling porky pies in government advertising in the last few days? That is what I ask the Treasurer. Mr SPEAKER: I hope you are not asking that question of me as Speaker. 10 Feb 2009 Matters of Public Interest 17

Mr SPRINGBORG: The simple reality is that the people of Queensland are asking how this government has so mismanaged the state that the Treasurer and the Labor Party are prepared to say that it is in recession ahead of the rest of Australia. That begs another question: what have they done with all of the resources of the coffers of Queensland? The people of this state are asking where all the money has gone. Why has the government put the state $65 billion into debt ahead of the global economic downturn? No-one else in Australia has been able to do that. Even Victoria has a much lower debt level of approximately $20 billion. Yesterday the LNP outlined our plan for the future, which is about reducing taxes for businesses in Queensland, creating a stimulus for businesses to keep people employed in this extremely difficult time and rewarding businesses for doing the right thing. Every time this government fails to manage Queensland’s economy properly, it puts up the taxes and borrows a little bit more. It simply sells another airport. It never cuts its cloth to suit. It is interesting that the Prime Minister of Australia is now saying that the capitalist experiment has failed. No longer do we have an economic conservative; we have a socialist who is now saying that the capitalist experiment has failed and we need a socialist experiment whereby the government borrows more and throws money at problems. I have news for the Treasurer and the federal government: if the previous federal government had not applied prudent financial management, there would not be such a large war chest to enable the government to dig itself out of the trouble that it has got itself in. The government has a vested interest in promoting hysteria in Queensland at a time when the people of Queensland simply want leadership from their government. They want a sense of direction from their government which it has not been prepared to provide them. They want to know that business is the main private enterprise driver in Queensland that actually creates jobs. My challenge to the Treasurer today is to match the LNP and reduce payroll tax in Queensland so that businesses in Queensland have not only the incentive but also the recognition they need to keep people’s jobs secure in the challenging times ahead. That is what we did yesterday. We outlined a plan that also allowed superannuation funds to get involved in building Queensland to provide sustainable, modest, guaranteed future returns for superannuants. What we should be doing is reducing taxes on business in Queensland, creating a business environment that is about productivity and security and certainty for workers in this state, not what we are seeing from this government, which is a lack of direction at a time when the people of this state are looking to the government to provide direction. We have seen copious examples rolled out in the last couple of weeks from the LNP—our education policy and our economic platform—which stand us in stark contrast to this government. Time expired.

Rockhampton Library Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (11.11 am): Since historical times when massive libraries were held by the ancient civilisations such as the Greeks and Romans, it has been a mark of our civilised communities to aspire to have up-to-date and relevant libraries. The strength of civilisations waxed and waned with the withdrawal or the reduction in availability of books, such as in the Middle Ages and under the Nazi regime in Germany. But our new library in Rockhampton is about more than books. I had much pleasure in representing the Premier, , at the opening of the new $11.6 million library building on Friday, 6 February in Rockhampton. It is also a great tribute to the hard work of both the former Rockhampton City Council, which is now the Rockhampton Regional Council, and the Queensland Labor government’s spending on regional communities. Our government contributed $4.15 million to the construction of this imposing building. The term ‘library’ derives from the Latin word ‘liber’, a book, and earlier repositories of the collective knowledge of various civilisations were comprised solely of books. Interestingly, a poem Ex Libris was written and recited by Rita Diplock at the opening. Our new library has books but also has electronic storage, internet services and computer training areas and has various supporting personnel to enable the provision of knowledge services to our region. It will become a community centre as well. I commend it to the Leader of the Opposition and some of his backbenchers: they may learn something. Rockhampton and the Fitzroy region has long been a centre for excellence in education, with its university and major private and public schools which have contributed much to the advancement of the state of Queensland. The new library and community centre will further enhance that position. The support of our state government was critical to the success of the construction as the initial design exceeded the budgeted amount. It was the member for Rockhampton, the Hon. Robert Schwarten, who worked to increase the initial $2.25 million contribution by $1.9 million to the $4.15 million that we ultimately provided. 18 Matters of Public Interest 10 Feb 2009

The original Rockhampton council members who started the process for construction some 10 years ago were at the opening—former mayor Jim McRae and councillors Jim Rundle and Dell Bunt. Judicious spending of budgeted moneys including the state government contribution resulted in a local firm, JM Kelly (Project Builders) Pty Ltd, undertaking the construction, thereby contributing to the local economy and providing jobs for local tradespeople. From the opening welcome to country by Sally Vea Vea on behalf of the Darumbal people, to the outline of the history of the planning for the construction, to the words of the Mayor of Rockhampton Regional Council, Councillor Brad Carter, to the joint blessing by the Catholic bishop, Most Reverend Brian Heenan, and the Anglican Bishop, Rt Reverend Godfrey Fryar, to the vote of thanks by Deputy Mayor Rose Swadling, the pride of the community in this joint project was evident. There is to be further construction to include the old School of Arts building in the complex. Interestingly, this was an original library for the Rockhampton City Council. Thanks to the amalgamation of the four councils in our region, the new building will service the whole region from Mount Morgan to the Capricorn Coast, Marlborough to Marmor. The whole borrowing system is integrated so that people can undertake dealings in any of the larger towns in the region. As a member of the Bligh government, I was very proud to be involved in the opening. As I have indicated, it is a great example of a community and council working together with the state government to provide substantial infrastructure for the benefit of the whole community. It was also noticeable that the Rockhampton Regional Council got the best tick in the Sunday Mail of 8 February for its work in advancing the region since amalgamation. I feel sure that I speak for the Hon. Robert Schwarten and Jim Pearce, my local parliamentary colleagues, when I say that it has been a pleasure working with the new council. Hopefully we can work together to attract further funding for our local government under the Rudd government infrastructure package to further enhance our communities through joint spending. Sunshine Coast Industrial Park Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—LNP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11.15 am): The Sunshine Coast Industrial Park is located at the end of Pierce Avenue in Caloundra and is a state government initiative. The park was developed over 12 months ago to ensure that we diversify tourism, development and retail across the Sunshine Coast. Stage 1 has now been developed to an exceptionally high standard. I table a photograph that shows the entry road into the estate. Tabled paper: Photograph of four-lane entrance to Sunshine Coast Industrial Park [4990]. The road is four-laned. It is kerbed and channelled. It has underground power. It is landscaped and has streetlighting as well. Indeed, when you look at the photograph, you would think you were driving into a housing estate. The park consists of 73 lots ranging in size from 2,000 square metres to the largest lot of around 10 hectares. Based on the combined total area of the 73 lots, which is in excess of 770,000 square metres, and the widely reported cost of $60 million borne by the taxpayers of Queensland, the government’s project cost is less than $80 per square metre plus some holding charges. Prices in relation to the lots vary from $225 per square metre for the largest lot to $330 per square metre for the smallest lot. As I said, these lots have now been on the market for a period of 12 months but only one has been sold, and that was to Energex for a substation. In the latter part of 2008 prices were cut by an average of 12 per cent and sales commissions were increased. All but four of the original 20 or so early contracts or expressions of interest have lapsed or been withdrawn by the potential buyers. The government now intends to put four lots to auction early this year to test the market. This government is otherwise out of any ideas or concepts as to how to sell 73 lots into which taxpayers have poured $60 million. This government clearly does not know how to conduct simple business. If this is an example of how Labor stimulates the Queensland economy, it is no wonder we have a debt of $65 billion and must rely on the federal government for financial support. The real concern is that taxpayers’ money is sitting idle at a cost of $60 million, and there is simply no return for the people of the Sunshine Coast or, indeed, Queensland. Bear in mind that the government portrayed this as one of the industrial parks of the future that would attract new and existing businesses to ensure they grew and nourished other industries across the coast and attracted more income and diversity to the region. This is a government that has touted for some considerable period of time that it knows how to conduct the economy, that it knows how to stimulate the economy and that it knows how to grow jobs. Over a period of 12 months this government has failed on all three initiatives in relation to the industrial park on the Sunshine Coast at the end of Pierce Avenue. If ever there was an example of a government that did not know how to market, did not know how to sell, did not know how to package an idea, this is it—$60 million of taxpayers’ money sits idle and 73 lots of prime industrial land sits unattended and unused by people in this state who could turn that into significant dollars for the region, who could take on apprentices and employ more people across the region. This is a government that is simply bereft of ideas as to how to stimulate the economy. Despite the fact that it uses rhetoric, it does not walk the talk. The government simply does not comprehend that it needs to work hand in hand with private enterprise to ensure that private enterprise also takes control 10 Feb 2009 Matters of Public Interest 19 of such ventures, because it is private enterprise which knows how to turn a dollar, which knows how to stimulate the economy and which will make this state great into the future. Small businesses are the backbone of this state. This government simply does not comprehend that when it puts its toe into the water it pollutes the water; it does not assist it.

Roads Infrastructure Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (11.19 am): The Bligh government is getting on with the job of building the infrastructure needed for Queensland. Roads are the backbone of the economy— connecting communities, providing access to services and supporting commerce and industry throughout our state. I am pleased that the Rudd Labor government is taking the global financial crisis seriously and has developed an unprecedented $42 billion economic stimulus package for our nation. This package will also create numerous jobs here in Queensland, particularly within the road sector. Components of the Rudd government stimulus package have been allocated to roadworks across the nation and include an extra $150 million in funding this financial year for critical maintenance work on the National Highway network, and a further $30 million for national black spot projects in 2008-09 and $60 million in 2009-10. In particular, I am advised that the evidence suggests that, for every $1 million that we spend on our maintenance program on the National Highway, it creates between 20 and 50 jobs. So this stimulus package is generating jobs. In Queensland we are getting on with the job of building more roads and connecting communities. As outlined in the state budget papers, investment by the Bligh government is reflected in the Main Roads capital program, which has increased significantly from $610 million in 2003-04 to $2.241 billion in 2007-08 to $3.2 billion in 2008-09. As members can see, we are consistently increasing the funding for our road networks and this is providing much-needed jobs for our local community. Today I would like to outline the major road projects which are currently underway and providing employment in south-east Queensland. This government is committed to managing urban traffic growth and congestion in the south-east corner and announced the nation’s largest road infrastructure project last year—the combined $4.8 billion dollar Airport Link, northern busway extension and airport roundabout upgrade. The $1.88 billion second Gateway Bridge river crossing and upgrade of the is another major project generating significant employment over the coming years. In addition to these projects, the Department of Main Roads is delivering a $7.9 billion roads program over the next five years in the south-east corner. These works alone should provide sustainable employment for almost 12,000 people on average every year in roads and supporting industries over this five-year period. A range of transport projects is underway to transform Brisbane’s western corridor. Some $47 million will be spent this year to continue construction of the two-lane Centenary Highway from Springfield to join the at Yamanto. This $366 million project represents sustained employment for some 950 people over the life of the project. Last year the member for Ipswich West, Wayne Wendt, and I had the opportunity to view this road extension firsthand. This highway will connect communities and provide the necessary transport corridor for the new communities of Ripley and outer Springfield. We are putting in the infrastructure to cater for future growth and development. Locally in my electorate the $255 million federally funded upgrade of the Wacol to Darra section of the continues, with the widening of a five-kilometre section from four to six lanes. A total of $170 million is planned to be spent this year, which should provide employment to more than 1,300 people in the 2008-09 financial year. The transport projects in the western corridor are some of the most complex and challenging ever undertaken in Queensland, and are expected to deliver improved traffic flow and travel times well into the future. Last week the member for Mount Ommaney, Julie Attwood, reopened the Bullockhead Street off- ramp along the Centenary Highway into Sumner. She had campaigned extensively and listened to the community about its planned reopening late this year. The federally funded Ipswich-Logan interchange project has a planned spend of $54 million this year. Once again, sustained employment for 1,000 people has been maintained over the two-year period of this project delivery. Elsewhere the upgrading of the Pacific Motorway between Nerang and Tugun continues with works on interchanges at Nerang South and Mudgeeraba. Some $43 million is planned to be spent in 2009, providing employment for 225 people this year on this jointly funded state and federal project. The duplication at Redcliffe of the continues. Expenditure of $89 million this year equates to approximately 694 direct and indirect jobs. All of these projects and many more are being delivered in south-east Queensland at a time when there is a need for generation of significant job opportunities in our region. The Bligh government is getting on with the business of building infrastructure and ensuring that we maintain and create jobs in this industry. 20 Matters of Public Interest 10 Feb 2009

Queensland Economy Mr WETTENHALL (Barron River—ALP) (11.24 am): As the impacts of the global financial crisis spread and deepen, it is clear that Queenslanders will not be immune from the effects. So it is quite right that we should brace ourselves against the prospect of worsening economic conditions. In doing so, we need not be branded as doomsayers or pessimists. Provided the economic levers available to government are pushed in the right direction, we have reason to feel cautiously confident and optimistic about the future. This is a time for responsible and progressive governments to hold their nerve. In Australia it has traditionally been Labor governments that have recognised the vital role that government must play in pump priming economies in decline and at risk of going into free fall. The Bligh government’s $17 billion infrastructure program has positioned our state to withstand the buffeting that is coming our way. Public infrastructure projects will secure jobs for thousands of Queenslanders. Queensland’s public servants, as well as delivering front-line services, are supporting the delivery of these projects in many ways. In tropical north Queensland, significant private sector projects in the mining and property sector are in the planning stages or are under construction. The aviation sector is holding its own, and everyone is hoping that shipbuilding in Cairns will get a major boost if the $300 million contract for three navy destroyers comes our way. The tourism industry has already clawed back a third of the lost airline seats from western Japan, and new direct services to the Gold Coast and Guam will be providing vital connections to established markets in Japan and will provide new opportunities for domestic travellers and those travelling into North America. The Bligh government’s emergency injection last year of $4 million to assist the tourism industry withstand the loss of 100,000 seats from western Japan has helped the industry stay afloat through this most difficult of times. The construction industry is also vital to the far north’s economy, and it is in the construction industry where the current economic conditions can really bite hard. That is why the Bligh government’s infrastructure program is so important to Queensland and so important to Cairns and the tropical north. At the Cairns parliament our government announced an $11.2 million redevelopment of the heritage wharfs to create a new cruise terminal and a $6 million cycleway program, beginning with a dedicated path from the CBD to suburbs in my electorate. Three hundred new cells are being added to the Lotus Glen Correctional Centre at a cost of $445 million. New state government offices in Cairns are under construction at a cost of $79.5 million. Construction of the new $12.6 million Cairns north primary health centre has commenced and will be completed soon, with new facilities for renal dialysis and diabetes patients. The $446 million Cairns Base Hospital redevelopment is proceeding full steam ahead, as is the expansion of the emergency department at a cost of $11.1 million. Energy needs have not been overlooked with upgrades of high-voltage transmission lines from Tully to Edmonton at a cost of $181 million, and $10.42 million is being spent on the Barron Gorge hydroelectric power station to improve efficiency and reliability and prolong the life of this most important renewable energy generator. Over the next five years some $773 million is booked for road projects in far-north Queensland. Major safety improvements have been made on the Kuranda Range section of the Kennedy Highway in my electorate, with more to come at a total cost of $2.84 million. New police and court facilities are planned or underway in far-north Queensland at a total cost of just under $27 million including a $1.3 million upgrade of the Smithfield Police Station in my electorate, which is nearing completion. A total of $60.5 million is being spent on education and training projects in schools and TAFEs throughout the region including $953,000 at Edge Hill State School and $18.2 million on stage 3 at Redlynch State College, which will be ready for occupation very soon. With many other government infrastructure projects planned and underway and with every million dollars spent estimated to generate eight jobs, it is thought that over the next financial year some 6,600 jobs will be created in far-north Queensland. The Bligh government is providing much needed new and upgraded health facilities, schools, police stations, roads and energy infrastructure. These projects will provide a significant buffer against the effects of the global economic crisis. Now is the time to hold our nerve and keep our foot on the accelerator.

North Queensland Floods Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (11.29 am): Honourable members would be aware that for the last 10 days the Hinchinbrook shire in my electorate of Hinchinbrook has experienced a prolonged and serious flood event—the largest flood event in the Herbert River district since 1977. Bureau of Meteorology rainfall totals for the first nine days of February for locations in the Hinchinbrook shire range from a low of 440 millimetres at Upper Stone to 1,318 millimetres at Hawkins Creek. Gauges in Ingham recorded between 900 millimetres and 1,000 millimetres for the same period. 10 Feb 2009 Matters of Public Interest 21

This severe flood event has been caused by very high rainfall associated with Tropical Cyclone Ellie and an active monsoon trough in north Queensland, falling simultaneously throughout the Hinchinbrook shire and in the upper catchment areas of the Herbert River causing it to peak on Tuesday, 3 February and Wednesday, 4 February at 12.25 metres. Regrettably, following further significant rainfall in the Herbert Valley and upper catchment areas, floodwaters in the Herbert River peaked for a second time at 12.25 millimetres on Saturday night, 7 February 2009. This second peak has been a real blow to the morale of the people of the Hinchinbrook shire, many of whom had commenced cleaning up their homes, business premises and properties on Friday, 6 February when waters had started to recede. They face the massive task of cleaning up again today after floodwaters began to recede very slowly yesterday, delayed by king tides and a watertable well past saturation point. My thoughts and prayers are with my constituents as they face this enormous, difficult and, for many, heartbreaking task. The Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Premier, the Minister for Emergency Services, the shadow minister for emergency services and Her Excellency the Governor have all visited the Hinchinbrook shire over the last seven days and witnessed for themselves, at various stages, the extent of the floodwaters, the extent of the damage, the remarkable efforts of our emergency services and the resilience of the people of the Herbert River district. They have all been welcome and demonstrated genuine concern for the welfare and circumstances of those affected by this flood event. I will speak again in the future in this place about the efforts of those who have distinguished themselves during the immediate response to this major flood event. At this point, it is enough to say that all Queenslanders can be proud of the efforts of the officers of the Queensland Police Service, the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service and the Queensland Ambulance Service, both locally and those who have been brought in from across the state, to assist with this enormous task. A special mention must be reserved for the State Emergency Service volunteers who have laboured tirelessly for days in terrible weather, many spending a considerable amount of time away from their own families who are also in difficult circumstances to undertake their duties. They have been an inspiration to many. I would also like to recognise the many employees of the Hinchinbrook Shire Council who have worked so very hard to maintain a range of services to the public and support the local disaster management committee to respond to this situation. When the Premier visited the Hinchinbrook shire on Friday, 6 February I indicated that I had been speaking to local stakeholders about what our community required to recover from this major flood event and enhance the capacity of the Herbert River district to better respond to this type of situation in the future. I have today written to the Premier outlining the initiatives and projects I believe could go a long way to achieving that objective and seeking a whole-of-government response from the Queensland government committing to these requests. Amongst them are immediate requests for a number of upgrades to facilities at the Ingham State Emergency Service unit headquarters, a small business assistance package to help the economic recovery of the local community and assistance for the Hinchinbrook Shire Council to upgrade the access to and facilities at Ingham Airport, a major strategic asset during flood events and similar disaster situations. I have asked the Premier to consider a number of requests in the short term, including an assistance package for the sugar industry. Sugarcane crops have now been inundated for 10 days, as have the assets of the harvesting and milling sectors. I have pressed for a new Ingham Fire and Rescue Service station, the current one having been inundated yet again by floodwaters, and requested additional funds for the Lower Herbert Water Management Authority, the Herbert River Improvement Trust, the Herbert River Catchment Group and the Hinchinbrook Shire Council for flood mitigation and drainage improvement projects. Lastly, I have canvassed with the Premier several long-term projects including achieving flood- free access across Palm Creek, which runs through the middle of Ingham and divides the town during flood events causing serious logistical problems for emergency services and local authorities. I have also stressed the need for improvements to the state controlled road network in the Hinchinbrook shire to mitigate the impact of flood events cutting off access to Ingham from outlying communities and the need for a dedicated emergency accommodation centre with facilities to house people displaced by major flood events or similar disaster situations. As I have indicated to the Premier, it is my responsibility to advocate for the community that I represent in the wake of this major flood event. The requests that I have put forward have been made in good faith and are a genuine attempt to progress initiatives and projects that will assist the Hinchinbrook shire to more effectively respond to major flood or similar events in the future. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! Before calling the honourable member for Waterford, I would like to acknowledge in the public gallery a group of concerned residents from the four southern Moreton Bay islands—Macleay Island, Karragarra Island, Lamb Island and Russell Island. Welcome this morning. I call the honourable member for Waterford. 22 Matters of Public Interest 10 Feb 2009

Waterford Electorate, Infrastructure Program Mr MOORHEAD (Waterford—ALP) (11.35 am): As we return to parliament in 2009 the Waterford electorate will see 2009 as the year of the roadworks. The residents of Logan and Beenleigh will see firsthand their share of the Bligh government’s $17 billion infrastructure program, delivering infrastructure for a growing community while building jobs for Queensland. The Bligh government’s infrastructure program can really be put into perspective when we compare $17 billion of infrastructure in Queensland alone with the Rudd government’s massive $42 billion economic package for the whole of Australia. I know that the schools in my electorate look forward longingly to the time when that package is passed and they can get on with building better facilities for their schools. In January the residents of Meadowbrook, Loganholme and Tanah Merah were relieved to see the completion of the $4.8 million resurfacing of the from Meadowbrook through to Loganholme. Residents along the motorway have been very patient with the construction noise which has persisted for over 12 months. However, I know residents will welcome the new open-grade asphalt surface which will provide local residents with some relief from road noise as well as a safer roadway for users of the Logan Motorway. I thank residents of these suburbs for their patience while this important infrastructure project is carried out in their backyard. I am also looking forward to a 2009 commencement of the Pacific Motorway upgrade, particularly improvements to the Loganlea Road interchange and the Paradise Road interchange. I know the member for Springwood will join with me in saying that. These two interchanges are the interface for residents of my electorate not only to access the Pacific Motorway but also to access services in Springwood and Daisy Hill. That is also the case for residents of Springwood and Daisy Hill in the member for Springwood’s electorate who wish to come to the western side of the Pacific Motorway. In 2008, the member for Springwood and I warmly welcomed the announcement by the minister for main roads, Warren Pitt, to award design contracts for this high-priority project. This project involves a massive $910 million from the Queensland and Commonwealth governments to improve the Pacific Motorway. The Loganlea Road interchange upgrade will mean that pressure is taken off local roads like Loganlea Road and there will be better access for local residents to the Pacific Motorway. I know that the parents of my electorate taking their children to schools in Daisy Hill will be looking forward to easy access across the Pacific Motorway. In January affected residents were notified of preliminary works that are currently being undertaken to commence the project. I must thank the Department of Main Roads for its communication with local residents to minimise the disturbance at this time. At the other end of Loganlea Road, 2009 will also see the construction of a second right-hand turn from Albert Street, Waterford into the northbound Loganlea Road. Main Roads engineers have been working hard to finalise the planning and design of this project which, I understand, has brought some very difficult engineering challenges. This project will relieve congestion at the intersection of the Larry Storey Bridge at Waterford. Residents of Meadowbrook, of which I am one, will also see work underway to reconfigure the Loganlea interchange of the Logan Motorway in readiness for the introduction of free-flow tolling. Meadowbrook residents have endured months of construction on the Logan Motorway over the last 12 months and more. We look forward to the conclusion of the project. I must thank the Logan Alliance undertaking this work for their comprehensive community communication measures, particularly the availability of on-site staff at Loganlea Road, Meadowbrook. This project will mean better access to the Logan Motorway for local residents, while the introduction of free-flow tolling will reduce the need for compression braking through this area of the motorway. These great projects are warmly welcomed and widely anticipated by the residents of my electorate. Not only will they improve the lifestyle for local residents and reduce the time they need to spend in their cars each day; they will support job growth in a community that wants every job opportunity that it can get. The only threat to these projects is the commitment by the National Party opposition to scrap some of these projects and make the jobs they bring ‘de-necessary’ while cutting 12,000 public sector jobs, threatening both job security and the delivery of services to Queensland communities. On the other hand, the commitment of the Bligh government is to strengthening Queensland’s economy and ensuring that jobs and job security are the top priorities for Queensland as we face the global economic downturn before us. North Queensland Floods, Queensland Rail Mr KNUTH (Charters Towers—LNP) (11.40 am): I rise to bring to the attention of the House the very serious matter of the lack of cooperation from Queensland Rail during the recent flooding of the Burdekin River over the Macrossan Bridge. I was employed by Queensland Rail for more than 20 years. I attended many washouts, many floods and a lot of maintenance and bridge and line repairs. During these events we recognised the plight of stranded travellers and those who needed to attend medical appointments and so on in the city. There was a great Aussie spirit as we transferred trapped travellers from one bridge to another. We prided ourselves on our ability to be there to help. We used section cars, rail motors and flat tops to get the job done. This was an automatic and natural response. People were in need and we had the resources to meet their needs. 10 Feb 2009 Matters of Public Interest 23

During the recent floods, the Burdekin River at Macrossan rose to a staggering height of 20.75 metres—the highest reading since 1946. While the Macrossan Bridge was closed, the road between Charters Towers and Mount Garnet was closed and the road between Charters Towers and Clermont was also closed. Charters Towers was isolated except for the still-functioning railway line, which runs parallel to the Flinders Highway. At a time when basic necessities such as medication and food to supply our three colleges, the elderly and the general public were being depleted, Queensland Rail hierarchy resisted appeals for help with freight transport. The local disaster management committee approached Queensland Rail for assistance in a crisis but, lo and behold, QR flatly refused to provide the required help. No-one could understand why QR had developed such a resistant attitude. But since QR has stopped all small freight and now concentrates on bulk haulage, it seemed determined not to help with the carting of small freight necessities, even in the time of emergency. During the closure of the Macrossan Bridge there was great stress amongst stranded travellers and people needing to keep their medical appointments and catch flights to their destination. Some travellers were stranded for days before being forced to find accommodation and to buy what little food remained in the town. Queensland Rail, however, threatened to prosecute desperate people who attempted walking across the rail bridge to finally get to their destination. Many felt that they had no choice but to risk prosecution and took off across the rail bridge. That was the extent of Queensland Rail’s offer—prosecution, no section cars, no rail transport, no support, no contingency plan, nothing! The attitude was, ‘We don’t transport small freight. The town can starve.’ However, recognising the error of its ways after appeal by the mayor, the state member, the local disaster committee and the media, QR thought it could sweeten the community by providing seven pallets of grog and a lawnmower—which turned up by rail from nowhere! Finally, after sufficient prodding, Queensland Rail finally gave in and sent the basic necessities by rail on Saturday afternoon. All of the time QR was trying to set the perception that it was being helpful, but this is a lie. Trains continued to operate throughout the crisis carrying ballast, so no-one could understand why the basic supplies could not be brought in. But wait! It does not finish there. The Inlander, which was held up at Hughenden, unmanned and unstaffed, passed through to Townsville by stealth in the early hours of Saturday morning hoping that stranded passengers in Charters Towers would not see it pass by. Queensland Rail knew that passengers where stranded but did not want to fly out personnel at a cost to escort stranded passengers to Townsville. This is a shocking disgrace and a far cry from my days of service in Queensland Rail when we felt privileged to look after people. It is all right for the state government and Queensland Rail to take a special gravy train to entertain a group of party hacks and pay all expenses to tour Brisbane with drinks and snacks provided and then wind up with a lavish lunch at Roma Street Parkland, but when it comes to a crisis which affects people and their welfare, Queensland Rail is nowhere to be seen. What has happened to the once-proud Queensland Rail that was renowned for its excellent service to Queenslanders? It has become a heartless, profit-making, cost-cutting corporation whose aim is to service the mining industry to the exclusion of the towns and the people who have made Queensland what it is today. I call on the minister to recognise that there has been a downturn in the mining industry and that now is the time to get back to the basics of providing a freight service and looking after people in times of crisis such as we have just experienced in the major floods in north Queensland. Victorian Bushfires and North Queensland Floods; Queensland Economy Ms DARLING (Sandgate—ALP) (11.44 am): Firstly I want to express my condolences to the people of north Queensland who have been affected by the flooding and the people of Victoria who have been affected by these dreadful fires over the weekend. We can clean up and we can rebuild, but the heartbreak is huge and the healing process is going to take a very long time. The Queensland and Commonwealth governments are currently dealing urgently, sensitively but essentially to stimulate the economy, protect jobs and maintain consumer and business confidence. I know there is some fear surrounding such an enormous package of measures as those that the Rudd government’s nation-building and jobs package provides, but this is no time for inaction or minor intervention. Globally, developed nations and central banks are reducing interest rates, guaranteeing financial institutions and easing fiscal policy. History teaches us that tightening the fiscal belt would only prolong the downturn. The Bligh government is already ahead of the game, being one of the fastest growing economies in the nation with economic growth second only to Western Australia, the lowest unemployment rate in a generation and a AAA credit rating and competitive tax regime. Toward Q2: Tomorrow’s Queensland sets the priorities to keep this state strong, creating a diverse economy powered by bright ideas. In these times of world economic insecurity, Queensland is in an excellent position to boost our infrastructure spending to protect jobs and apprenticeships. The Queensland government has already budgeted to invest $17 billion this financial year on infrastructure including ports, rail, road, water, schools, public transport and hospitals, which is about a 19 per cent increase on the 2007-08 budget. The Bligh government will provide jobs and training for more than 15,000 people under the Skilling 24 Matters of Public Interest 10 Feb 2009

Queenslanders for Work initiative in 2009. The state will invest some $81 million into jobs programs for the unemployed and underemployed this year. This program has very much benefited the people of the Sandgate electorate, and the Sandgate and Bracken Ridge Action Group regularly runs these training programs. I recently spoke with a mother at Sandgate State School who said that it had turned her life around. She is now working at a local nursing home. The Fitzgibbon Urban Development Area in my electorate of Sandgate will be a transit oriented community centred around existing and proposed transport infrastructure of Carseldine station and the future Northern Busway. The Urban Land Development Authority is now seeking public submissions on its proposed development scheme for the Fitzgibbon UDA, and I encourage all interested people to have their say. I spent much of last year consulting with the people of Fitzgibbon and I know the development will be a major part of my work again this year. This is the blueprint for a unique community that will include a wide variety of housing with a special focus on affordable units as well as shops, offices and eateries so that people can live, work and play locally. Having public transport, shops and employment so close to home will provide a real incentive for people to use their cars less, which is great for the environment and cuts traffic in other places. More than 500 people will have work through the design and construction of this community, which is a real shot in the arm for the local development industry. The design and construction stage will also provide many training and apprenticeship opportunities for local students and young people, and I have already commenced working with my local high schools to make sure there are plenty of opportunities for them. Another great employer in the area is the $315 million Houghton Highway bridge duplication which connects the electorates of Redcliffe and Sandgate. It is estimated that up to 800 workers will be involved over the life of the project. Sandgate electorate schools are all older schools—between 50 and 120 years old—and I was pleased to be able to advocate increased funding under the State Schools of Tomorrow program. Last year every single state school in my electorate was allocated additional maintenance as part of the Bligh government’s $90 million program. The Rudd government’s $14.7 billion Building the Education Revolution program was enthusiastically welcomed in my local community. Sandgate District State High School is desperately in need of an updated science lab. Shorncliffe State School has a master plan. It would love a new library and assembly area. Norris Road State School is looking at refurbishments and car parking and Brighton State School is looking forward to insulation and improved ventilation. The funding boost, plus the federal nation-building package, not only will modernise our local facilities, such as schools, social housing, roads, rail and community buildings, but also will create essential jobs to keep the nation on track and to keep unemployment low. I urge the senators of Queensland to vote for the stability and future of the state they represent and vote in support of the Rudd government’s $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan. North Queensland Floods Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (11.49 am): The northern regions of Queensland have been subject to an extreme flooding event which is at least as high as it has been on previous occasions but which has continued for much longer than ever before, making it a unique event. Although the worst of the flooding has so far been confined to the north-western region and around the Ingham area, the cutting of the major highway transport routes to the south and west of my electorate has caused a crisis for primary producers and small businesses in the far-north and tablelands regions more severe than ever before. Because of the prolonged road closures and the fact that there are no viable alternatives, farmers are facing the prospect of dumping millions—if not tens of millions—of dollars worth of produce. This is produce that has been carefully nurtured over the past 12 months by farmers and their staff—harvested, cleaned, treated, sorted and packed at great expense. Some of it is already on trucks waiting at roadsides for floodwaters to subside. The majority is in cold storage waiting to go and the remainder is still in the paddock, waiting to be harvested but with nowhere to put it. Most of this produce is perishable, with a very specific shelf life. It is imperative that it gets to the southern markets within a short period to avoid it being rejected. At present, the roads are still cut after several weeks. Some of the perishables are going off and will have to be dumped. With the prospect of further delays in the coming weeks, the future is looking very bleak for these producers and their employees. They are asking for the far north to be declared a natural disaster area, similar to that in the north-west, as the prolonged flooding of roadways to the southern markets is having a serious impact on the entire far-northern economy. A letter received from one constituent states in part— I am the owner of a small business and employer that is based on the Tablelands south of Cairns. We are located near the town of Malanda ... Currently my business is facing unprecedented financial hardship due to the sustained monsoonal flooding. Our main business is sales and service of farming tractors and equipment; we rely heavily on rural and farming customers to support our business ... for many weeks we have been unable to send staff or resources to the area due to the isolation and flooding. This is causing us a dramatic loss in sales and cash-flow ... We urgently and immediately need financial help ... the situation is becoming more and more desperate by the day. 10 Feb 2009 Matters of Public Interest 25

Another letter I received was from the owner of a herb farm in Kuranda who was distressed by having to put off staff. That person wrote— I have very, very reluctantly had to stand staff down; no work as we have no idea when we will be able to resume normal deliveries. Centrelink advised the need to issue Separation Certificates for short-term assistance—a measure I perceive as extreme given these people I value and depend on. And another letter from a produce marketer noted that many growers were still recovering from Cyclone Larry and Cyclone Monica. This wet season and these floods are wreaking great havoc. What makes this wet season different from most other wet seasons is that it has been so intense for so long and it has dominoed over the weeks from the west, where it first struck, across from the far-north coast and tablelands area and down the Queensland coast to Townsville, leading to roadblocks for weeks on end. There are expectations of further flooding of the Bowen and possibly Mackay areas in the weeks ahead. The alternative inland road route has also been cut in several places and in the current weather conditions is also unusable. The gravel section south-west of The Lynd is not sealed and, again, is unusable. When this lack of transport options is coupled with the very tight situation that is facing many rural industries, the potential for massive financial hardship cannot be overstated. For the tablelands and surrounding areas, the immediate need is for assistance to ensure that producers are not forced to the wall by circumstances that are totally outside their control. In the longer term, the need is for a flood- proof bulk freight route to the southern markets, either on the federal government controlled Bruce Highway or the state government controlled Kennedy Highway through Mount Garnet via the back country. I can say that there have been few road closures in my electorate, although all the roads have suffered badly from water saturation. But luckily, the links to the Cairns Airport are all open. Subsidised air freight, using perhaps federal Army Hercules or C17s, should be considered to help save farms, businesses and jobs which are on the brink as we speak, given the uniqueness of this event. Work to properly flood-proof the Bruce Highway needs to be accelerated while an inland route, which exists, needs to be upgraded to take as much heavy transport off the coast as possible. The government has a moral obligation to provide essential infrastructure that is up to the job. In the meantime, we need far-north Queensland to be declared a disaster area and given additional assistance similar to that which was given after cyclones Larry and Monica. Otherwise, we will continue to see industries, communities and families under extreme stress and massive potential job losses.

South-East Queensland Storms, The Gap Ms JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (11.54 am): Next week will mark three months since the devastating storms hit The Gap on 16 November last year. It was a tragic end to the sesquicentenary year for the suburb. While we were overwhelmed by the destruction to thousands of people’s homes, our beautiful greenery and our community infrastructure, everyone I spoke to reflected on how blessed we were to have suffered no loss of life. Given the tragic events of last week in Victoria and the floods in north Queensland and north-west Queensland, this sense of relief is now even more poignant. While it is a long and difficult road to recovery for our community, we are very mindful that there are many other thousands of Australians who have now been devastated by a natural disaster on an even larger scale. Since November there has been significant progress in the recovery and rebuilding effort in The Gap. We can only say to those other communities that have been affected by devastation in the past couple of weeks that it is a long road, but it is one that they can all walk together. In total, Q-Build has received more than 2,000 work requests across all government agencies, amounting to over $5.5 million in repair work across the north-western suburbs. In the state schools in The Gap alone, more than $1 million worth of rebuilding work is underway. I want to take this opportunity to thank the staff, teachers and parents and citizens associations who have worked tirelessly to get as much work as possible done during the school break so that school could be as back to normal as possible by the beginning of the school year—people like Catherine Trotter of The Gap State School, who turned up throughout the school holidays with her gardening gloves on to clean up the school gardens for the new school year. I know there are school staff and supporters just like her at all the schools in The Gap who gave up their own holidays to assist. I want to place on the record my particular gratitude to the school principals who at their most busy time of year—the end of the school year—also had the added burden of coordinating the recovery efforts at each of their schools. I know all of them worked around the clock and throughout the school holidays to fast-track the rebuilding work at their schools. At Hilder Road Primary School, Principal Jo Bottrell suffered some of the most significant damage, with nearly all of her classrooms affected by water damage. She also had extensive damage to her school’s grounds. At Payne Road State School, Acting Principal Vicki Richards not only had damage to contend with at the school; many Payne Road families, who had survived the initial storms on 16 November, suffered significant water damage to their homes through flooding throughout the week. 26 Telecommunications Interception Bill 10 Feb 2009

At The Gap State School, Maria Chackalakis suffered the most costly damage to her school in regard to rebuilding costs as a result of the heartbreaking loss caused by significant damage to the multipurpose building, which was largely funded by determined P&C efforts and which is expected to be in the order of $130,000. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the minister for education for listening to my representations on the importance of fixing this building as soon as possible. Initially, I was advised that it could take until late March to get this work completed, but I have now been advised that it could be completed in a matter of days as opposed to weeks, for which I am very grateful. This building is of major significance not only to the school but also to the whole Gap community, as it is highly visible from Settlement Road. I know that its rectification will be very symbolic for the community. I also want to acknowledge the work of Russell Pollock, the principal of The Gap State High School. That school suffered over $200,000 worth of damage and significant loss of trees throughout the school site. The landscaping alone has been a huge job and continues. In addition to significant infrastructure work, the Department of Communities has gone beyond the call of duty in regard to its assistance. It has provided more than $10 million of emergency assistance grants to local residents. I want to finish my contribution by repeating some of the sentiments the member for Hinchinbrook expressed this morning in regard to insurance companies. I have worked closely with the Insurance Council and, like the member for Hinchinbrook, have made many representations to it on behalf of my local constituents. I know it is a huge job. We are looking at more than 34,000 claims as a result of these storms to a value of more than $300 million. We need to do all that we can to ensure that people get back into their homes as quickly as possible. I note the insurance companies’ praise for the state government and the Brisbane City Council and their working together to establish a fast-tracking process for building applications in an effort to assist with a faster recovery effort. I call on the insurance companies to do all that they can to ensure that Gap residents get back into their homes as soon as possible. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time for matters of public interest has expired.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION BILL

First Reading Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (12.00 pm): I present a bill for an act to enhance law enforcement in Queensland by enabling the Queensland Police Service and the Crime and Misconduct Commission to be declared agencies under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cwlth). I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Question put—That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. Tabled paper: Telecommunications Interception Bill [4991]. Tabled paper: Telecommunications Interception Bill, explanatory notes [4992]. Second Reading Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Premier) (12.00 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to introduce the Telecommunications Interception Bill 2009. This bill delivers on my government’s commitment to ensure our law enforcement agencies have the powers they need to fight crime. At the same time, the bill provides the high standard of checks and balances to the powers that the public expects and deserves. This bill will enable the Queensland Police Service and the Crime and Misconduct Commission to apply for telecommunications interception warrants for the investigation of serious offences. Telecommunications interception is a highly effective tool for detecting and prosecuting serious criminal activity, particularly drug trafficking, organised crime, predatory paedophilia networks, corruption and premeditated violent crimes. It is an efficient investigative tool; it can be a key source of information for directing the focus of complex operations. It can also free up the time that law enforcement officers might otherwise spend on physical and technical surveillance or undercover work. It can reduce threats to officers’ safety. The evidence it produces can be compelling. But it is also an investigative tool that is highly intrusive on the privacy rights of individuals. Applications for telephone interception warrants are made without the knowledge of the targeted person or the people with whom they are likely to communicate. Given this intrusiveness, the bill provides the further safeguard—unique to any state telecommunications interception legislation—of the involvement of the Public Interest Monitor, or PIM, in Queensland applications for interception warrants to test the validity of applications. 10 Feb 2009 Adoption Bill 27

The Queensland government lobbied the former coalition federal government for five years for the inclusion of the PIM in the warrant application process for Queensland telecommunications interception powers. I am very pleased that in August 2008, Prime Minister Rudd wrote to me advising that his government had agreed to amend its act to allow Queensland law enforcement agencies to apply for interception warrants and that it would do so in a manner that provided for the comprehensive involvement of the PIM in the warrant application process. I thank the Prime Minister for acting so swiftly on Queensland’s request. Queensland and federal officials have worked together to ensure the state and supporting Commonwealth bills align constitutionally and are otherwise mutually acceptable. On 3 December 2008, the federal Attorney-General introduced into the Commonwealth House of Representatives the Telecommunications Interception Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), giving effect to the Prime Minister’s agreement to full PIM involvement. The bill must now pass the Senate before the Queensland bill can take full effect. This bill represents a significant addition to the crime-fighting capabilities of Queensland’s law enforcement agencies. I understand that the federal bill is likely to go before the Senate this week. Its introduction to the House today means that we will be in a position to debate this bill when the Senate has passed the bill, which I hope it will do, and it becomes Commonwealth law. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Langbroek, adjourned.

ADOPTION BILL

First Reading Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Women) (12.04 pm): I present a bill for an act to make provision about the adoption of children and to make related amendments of the Adoption of Children Act 1964, the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003 and the Child Protection Act 1999 and to make consequential amendments of other acts as stated in schedule 2. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Question put—That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. Tabled paper: Adoption Bill [4993]. Tabled paper: Adoption Bill, explanatory notes [4994]. Second Reading Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Women) (12.04 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. It is with great pleasure that I rise today to introduce into the House a bill which comprehensively reforms and modernises Queensland’s 40-year-old adoption laws. In July last year, Premier Anna Bligh and I publicly announced that our government would overhaul Queensland’s adoption laws by bringing to a conclusion the reform process which has been ongoing since 2001. The new Adoption Bill, which reflects contemporary community standards, is now ready for parliament’s consideration. The Bligh government has taken this issue out of the too-hard basket and is delivering fair laws to those people affected by adoption. In recognising that adoption is a very complex and sensitive matter, I ensured that there was extensive consultation with the community in developing the reforms. Queenslanders clearly told me that the current adoption laws are not fair. We have listened and the government is responding with significant reform. No longer will Queensland have the most restrictive adoption laws in the country. There are several major areas of reform which I wish to bring to the attention of honourable members. For the first time, adoption laws in Queensland will provide for open adoption practice which will allow a child’s birth and adoptive families to know each other from the time of the adoption or to choose to have a closed adoption arrangement. Currently Queensland is the only Australian jurisdiction where adoption orders are made administratively. The bill proposes that adoption orders be made by the court. Eligibility to lodge expressions of interest to adopt will be extended from married couples to de facto couples who have been in a relationship for at least two years. The bill’s objective is to ensure that all children who require adoption, whether locally or through intercountry adoption programs administered by the Australian government, receive the best possible care. It will also enshrine that the child’s wellbeing and best interests, both through childhood and into adulthood, are paramount in all of my department’s deliberations. These reforms are in line with the Bligh government’s vision for a fairer Queensland. 28 Adoption Bill 10 Feb 2009

In July last year, the government expanded the scope for reform to include the law which governs the right for people to access information about others associated with their adoption if it occurred before June 1991. Current laws restrict adopted people and birth parents who were involved in an adoption prior to 1991 accessing information if one of them objected to the release of the information. Currently more than 1,100 people adopted before June 1991 cannot know their own family history because of objections lodged by their birth parents. There are also more than 1,600 birth parents who currently cannot know the name their child has grown up with or the names of the adoptive parents who have raised them because of objections lodged by the children who were adopted. Many people have shared their stories with me, telling me that not knowing these facts can lead to a great deal of pain and suffering. The consultation was also clear that some people do not want their information released and are worried about unwelcome intrusion into their lives. As a result of this feedback the Bligh government is reforming the law to ensure equal access to identifying information by all birth parents and adopted persons regardless of when the adoption took place. Importantly, we will be maintaining the right for people to state their preference for no contact which, for these pre-1991 adoptions, will be legally enforceable. The adoption reforms balance people’s right to information about their own personal history, yet maintain the rights of others to privacy. People familiar with adoption practices will know this information as identifying information and it can include your name before you were adopted; your birth parent’s name at the date he or she consented to the adoption; the date of birth of your birth mother when you were born; or your adopted child’s name after their adoption; and the names of the couple who became your child’s adoptive parents. Since 1991 Queensland’s adoption law has provided adopted people and birth parents with a right to access such identifying information about their birth parents or child who was adopted once the adopted person turns 18 years of age. However, in the case of adoptions which occurred prior to adoption records being opened up in June 1991, a birth parent or adopted person can prevent information which identifies them being provided to other people associated with the same adoption. The objection remains in force until it is revoked—even after the death of the person who lodged it. This makes Queensland the most restrictive regime of all Australian jurisdictions, because it is the only state which allows one person to indefinitely block another person’s access to identifying adoption information for adoptions which occurred before 1 June 1991. Having access to this information is very important to many adopted people and birth parents. More than 16,000 people have obtained identifying adoption information since this right was introduced in 1991. The government has examined the best way to give adopted people and birth parents equal access to information about their birth history and their children who were adopted. I released the Balancing Privacy and Access: Adoption Consultation Paper, which asked people to consider whether the current adoption laws about identifying information appropriately balance and protect the rights and interests of all parties to adoptions in Queensland. The consultation paper sought feedback from people with experience of adoption generally, and from those affected by adoption laws in Queensland in particular. As was expected, submissions were received from people who strongly support identifying adoption information being made available to all adopted people and birth parents, and from other people whose opposition to this was equally intense. In most instances, people understood the sensitivity associated with balancing access to information and respecting people’s privacy, and they expressed a genuine desire for future laws to be responsive to the interests of all parties. The majority of people who responded supported adopted people’s and birth parents’ right to access identifying information and also supported people’s right not to be contacted by another party to an adoption, if this is not their wish. The feedback received indicated there is more support for the law to be changed to enable parties to all adoptions to receive identifying information than there is for the law to remain as it is. A majority of people told us they considered the current laws to be unfair. In fact, 65 per cent of 321 respondents believed the current Adoption of Children Act 1964 does not achieve a fair balance between the interests of adopted people and birth parents who would like to obtain identifying information and those who want to maintain their privacy and do not wish to be contacted. The feedback also indicated the new laws must address the significant concerns held by people who wish to maintain their privacy. When I set out down the path of reform, I knew it would be difficult to strike a fair balance. In considering reports of the trauma associated with some birth mothers’ past experiences—their fear that they will be judged harshly if the facts of an adoption become known and the ongoing negative consequences reported by some people who have been denied access to identifying information—I was determined that the government address these matters sensitively and with great care, respect and compassion. Stakeholders supporting change told me in emotional meetings that the final pieces of their life puzzle were missing. They pleaded to be given their identity. Meetings with privacy protection groups were equally as compelling. 10 Feb 2009 Adoption Bill 29

I would like to acknowledge the hundreds of people who met with me and my staff, with members of parliament or with my department and contributed significantly to consultation on this bill. I particularly acknowledge the courage of people who shared their most personal experiences and life stories. All made what must have been very difficult decisions to share their own private details of their adoption experiences in a bid to effect change or to retain the status quo. They shared their heartfelt sorrow, grief for the absence of adopted relatives, fear of reliving the past, hunger for personal information that has been so long denied and the impact this has had, as well as the great joy of successful reunions. For me it has been a most humbling experience to meet with so many affected by Queensland adoption laws and to read their moving submissions to the consultation paper. The Bligh government has carefully and sensitively weighed up these matters to develop a way forward that is fair to all parties. The bill gives adopted people and birth parents equal access to identifying information, whether the adoption occurred before or after 1 June 1991, while continuing to respect the wishes of those people who do not wish to be contacted. This is achieved by removing the right for people to lodge an objection to prevent another person from receiving identifying information about them. Existing information objections are twofold, covering a person’s objection to the release of identifying information as well as their objection to being contacted. These will be transitioned so they become only objections to being contacted. Existing contact objections will remain in place. In addition, people will be able to lodge a statement setting out their wishes about being contacted—including their wish not to be contacted—and to specify arrangements which suit their individual circumstances. This signals a clear end to the restrictive regime contained in the current adoption laws and marks the introduction of new legislation which strikes a fairer balance between the interests of those people who wish to access identifying information and those who do not wish to be contacted. While the consultation demonstrated a level of concern about whether contact objections would be effective in protecting a person’s privacy and ensuring they do not experience unwanted contact, there is extensive evidence from Queensland, other Australian states and international experiences that contact objections are an effective mechanism to protect against unwanted contact and intrusion into people’s lives. ‘Contact only’ objections have operated successfully in Queensland since June 1991 and, as at 30 June 2008, there were 247 current objections to contact only. No breaches of ‘contact only’ objections have been reported to the department in the past 10 years and only one breach has ever been prosecuted. New South Wales and Western Australia report similarly high compliance with contact objections. International research comparing the social impact opening adoption records had in some American states, Great Britain and Australia from 1953 to 2007 has found similar high levels of compliance with contact objections. Research shows that, although people were fearful their privacy would not be respected, the reality of opening access to adoption records is that few, or no, breaches of contact objections are committed, and the birth parents’ and adopted adults’ fears that their privacy will be invaded and their family disrupted actually do not eventuate. To safeguard the privacy of those who have previously lodged objections, and of those who in the future express a wish for no contact, the bill only permits identifying information about them to be released to another person if the person has participated in an interview—which may be in person or by telephone—with an officer of the department and if they have signed a document acknowledging the other person does not want to be contacted and it would be an offence to do so. These mechanisms mean the department can help people to understand individuals’ reasons for not wanting contact. In addition, the court will be able to make an order preventing the release of someone’s identifying information to another person if doing so would pose an unacceptable risk of harm. It will also continue to be an offence carrying a maximum penalty of 100 penalty units, which is $10,000, or imprisonment for two years, for a person who knows another person has lodged an objection to contact—or registered their preference for no contact—to contact or attempt to contact the person either directly or through another person. As I acknowledged earlier, releasing identifying information to another party to an adoption, as well as supporting people to ensure they can clearly express the type and level of contact they might seek with another party, must be handled sensitively and with great care. To this end, I am pleased to announce plans to establish a dedicated postadoption support service for Queensland. This service will be independent from the department and funded specifically to support people who are affected by adoption orders made in Queensland. Local adoptions will be prioritised. In view of the time, I seek leave to have the remainder of my speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. It will provide a range of services including: A free telephone helpline; face-to-face individual counselling; support for people preparing a contact statement; support for those prevented from making contact because another party has expressed a preference for no contact; mediation services and reunion support; community awareness raising to ensure adoption is better understood in the community; and developing resources and providing training to assist counsellors, psychologists, psychiatrists and other helping professionals increase their adoption expertise. Open adoption As mentioned earlier, the Bill will provide for the practice of open adoption. 30 Adoption Bill 10 Feb 2009

This will allow the opportunity for a child’s birth and adoptive families to know each other from the time of the child’s adoption, if they agree, and to decide on the extent of information exchange and/or contact that will occur. However, the parties to an adoption can still choose to have a closed adoption arrangement if they want to, until the child turns 18. Research supports open adoption as a healthier option for children, as it enables them to more readily feel comfortable about their birth and adoption. This can help promote a positive self image as they grow up. It can also remove anxieties people may have about the impact access to identifying information and possible contact may have when the child turns 18. The Department of Child Safety, through Adoption Services Queensland, will help birth parents and adoptive parents who wish to use open adoption, to come to an agreement about the type of open adoption arrangement they would like to have for their child. Most open adoption arrangements are expected to begin cautiously. For example, a child’s adoptive and birth families might start by exchanging correspondence a few times a year through the Department’s Mailbox program. The arrangements can evolve as the child grows and the parties become more comfortable with the contact arrangements. The arrangement will be documented in an adoption plan setting out how the parties propose to communicate and, if they agree to in-person contact, how and when the contact will happen. Importantly, an adoption plan will not be legally binding or interfere with the right of the adoptive parent to make decisions for their adopted child. The wide-ranging reform is consistent with the direction of the Department’s One Chance at Childhood initiative—aimed at providing stability for children in care in their crucial early years and avoiding the danger of children ‘drifting’ between parents and numerous foster care placements. The focus on open adoption will make adoption a more viable option for securing permanent care in a loving family environment for at-risk children and so enhance the effectiveness of the One Chance at Childhood initiative. My Department’s first priority will always be to support birth families keep their children living safely with them in the first instance and to work with families, where possible, to strengthen and reunite them once it is safe to do so. However, it is a sad fact that there are times when reunification for a child in care is not safe or possible and never will be. In these cases, children and young people need stability and permanency. Adoption is included in the suite of options to provide this. Research recognises children need stability in their living arrangements and relationships to reach their physical, emotional, social and intellectual potential. Experiencing secure attachments is central to supporting children’s positive mental health and psychological adjustment. Importantly, when adoption is considered to be in the best interests of a child in care, priority will be given to that child’s carer as the prospective adoptive parent, in recognition of the stability and bond that may have already formed. While the introduction of open adoption will assist in facilitating adoption when it is the best option for a particular child in care, it is likely to be the case for only a small number of children in care. To place this in context, in England adoption has long been the preferred permanent option for children in long-term care, yet just 4 per cent of almost 60,000 children in government care were adopted as at 31 March 2008. Orders made by the court Another significant area of reform is the requirement for adoption orders to be made by a court. Adoption orders in Queensland are currently made by the Director-General of the Department of Child Safety. Queensland is the only Australian jurisdiction in which adoption orders are made administratively. Adoption has important legal consequences because it permanently changes a child’s legal identity and legal relationship with his or her birth family. In recognition of this significant and serious change to a child’s life, it is therefore appropriate and necessary for the adoption of a child to be decided by a court and the Bill provides for this and brings Queensland into line with every other Australian jurisdiction. My Department, through Adoption Services Queensland, manages an Expression of Interest Register, which contains the names of couples interested in becoming adoptive parents either through a local adoption or an intercountry adoption. Currently, the Expression of Interest Register is periodically opened for limited periods, when it is necessary to increase the number of prospective parents required to meet the anticipated need to find adoptive placements for children. The current objective is to identify the best possible prospective adoptive families to meet the needs of the small number of children who require adoptive parents. I have listened to many people, particularly in the inter-country adoption community, who have struggled with the uncertainty of when applications can be made and the rush and anxiety that accompanies the opening of the register. This rush to lodge expressions of interest when the register is open, can lead couples to do so even though they may not be fully ready to commit to adoption at that time. To overcome this, the Bill provides that the Register will generally remain open so people interested in adoption are able to lodge an expression of interest at any time. This will create greater certainty for couples interested in adoption, because they will be able to lodge an expression of interest at the time they are ready, willing and able to actively proceed through the adoption process. Other mechanisms are being introduced to increase the efficiency of the register, including: no longer allowing people to postpone an expression of interest if they are not ready to proceed; and ensuring they regularly review their decision to continue pursuing adoption by requiring renewal of expressions of interest every two years if they have not moved through to assessment. Eligibility expanded Another important and contemporary reform introduced by the Bligh Government is that eligibility to lodge expressions of interest will no longer be limited to married couples. Instead, eligibility will be opened up to de facto couples who have been in a committed relationship for at least two years. There are also important changes relating to consent before an adoption can be made. Currently, a father is only required to consent to his child’s adoption if he is married to the child’s mother, either at the time the child was conceived or at the time of adoption. The Bill will require a child’s mother, father and any legal guardian to give informed and voluntary consent before a child can be placed for adoption, regardless of marital status. The Bill will also require the Department to give a man thought to be a child’s father information about how he can determine paternity, consent to the child’s adoption or seek a Family Court order in relation to his parenting the child, if he wishes to do so. Finally Mr Speaker, Queensland is fortunate to have a number of voluntary adoption stakeholder groups offering care and support to people affected by adoption. 10 Feb 2009 Industrial Relations Amendment Bill 31

On behalf of the Bligh Government I thank those volunteers, both current and past, who have been committed to helping others and have made personal sacrifices to keep these groups going. I am sure they will welcome the news that a dedicated post adoption support service will be established in Queensland as they have been advocating for this for many years. I hope these voluntary groups will continue to play a valuable part in the adoption community. I am confident they will continue to work closely with Adoption Services Queensland and will complement the statewide post adoption service. Finally, in line with the Bligh Government’s vision for a fairer Queensland, I am proud this Bill is a very progressive piece of new legislation which will bring Queensland’s adoption practice in line with international best practice. I commend the Adoption Bill 2009 to the House. Debate, on motion of Mrs Stuckey, adjourned.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Hon. RJ MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations) (12.18 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Industrial Relations Act 1999, for particular purposes. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Question put—That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. Tabled paper: Industrial Relations Amendment Bill [4995]. Tabled paper: Industrial Relations Amendment Bill, explanatory notes [4996]. Second Reading Hon. RJ MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations) (12.19 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. Since the election of the Rudd government there have been ongoing discussions between the federal government and the states about a national industrial relations system to replace WorkChoices. The Fair Work Bill 2008 codifies the current situation in which the president of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission—to be renamed Fair Work Australia—and the heads of the state tribunals together discuss matters of interjurisdictional cooperation and enter into written arrangements regarding administrative support. Through the Workplace Relations Ministers Council, the states have made it clear that, if they are to join a national uniform system, there should be a place for state institutions in the delivery of that system, including state tribunals. We envisage that Queensland Industrial Relations Commission members could be utilised in the new Fair Work Australia industrial relations system. This could be done by making greater use of the current system whereby commissioners hold dual appointments to both the state and federal commissions. And while the federal government has given no commitments about the final outcome it proposes, it has promised to discuss the utilisation of state institutions with the various states over the ensuing months. The Fair Work Bill 2008 was introduced to the federal parliament on 25 November 2008 and referred to a Senate committee, which will be reporting back this month. The Commonwealth proposes to commence most of the bill from 1 July 2009. As I mentioned earlier, the bill highlights the role of the president of Fair Work Australia and the president’s working relationship with the presidents of the state industrial relations commissions. This raises some difficulties in Queensland with regard to dealing with the AIRC or FWA, because in this state it is the vice-president, rather than the president, who is responsible for most of the administrative functions of the commission. The Industrial Relations Amendment Bill 2009 before us remedies this situation. The bill transfers the necessary powers from the vice-president of the QIRC to the president of the QIRC. The bill places the QIRC in the best possible position to take advantage of any national industrial relations system that may emerge. The amendments before us will clarify the roles of the vice-president and president within the QIRC without interfering in the independence of the QIRC, changing the nature of the QIRC’s powers or fettering their use. The amendments will also strengthen the administration of the QIRC by removing any confusion associated with the president and vice-president having various administrative responsibilities and will ensure that the status and seniority of the president’s position are appropriately acknowledged. The amendments will align the QIRC with the administrative structure of industrial tribunals in most other jurisdictions. Debate, on motion of Mr Dickson, adjourned. Sitting suspended from 12.22 pm to 2.30 pm. 32 Planning (Urban Encroachment—Milton Brewery) Bill 10 Feb 2009

SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

Report Mrs SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (2.30 pm), by leave: I table the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s Alert Digest No. 1 of 2009. In addition, I table a copy of a submission received by the committee from the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties. The submission is with regard to the Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008. Tabled paper: Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, Alert Digest No. 1 of 2009 [4997]. Tabled paper: Submission, dated 13 January 2009, to the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee from the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties relating to the Corrective Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 [4998].

PLANNING (URBAN ENCROACHMENT—MILTON BREWERY) BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 27 November 2008 (see p. 3880), on motion of Mr Lucas— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr HOBBS (Warrego—LNP) (2.31 pm): I am pleased today to talk to the Planning (Urban Encroachment—Milton Brewery) Bill 2008. The purpose of this bill is to ensure certainty in an environment of increasing development and intensification, therefore creating an enabling environment for development in a particular area. The Milton Railway Station precinct, directly opposite the Milton Brewery, provides an opportunity for a transit orientated development, a TOD. TODs are mixed-use residential and employment areas designated to maximise the efficient use of land through high levels of access to public transport. In this day and age with the increasing population in this state, particularly with increasing numbers of people moving to Brisbane and the south-east corner, there is a need for clarity in planning for higher population densities. A TOD is one method of doing that. Development at Milton rail station precinct will lead to increased population densities and reduce the distance between residences and the brewery, which has been operating since the 1870s and is of heritage significance. The bill specifically protects the established brewery by conferring immunity from criminal (local law) and civil proceedings for releasing contaminants in the atmosphere, noise and light emissions based nuisance complaints where the brewery is operating within its licence conditions. The certainty provided by this legislation will give legislative protection to allow the brewery to operate as an existing use. The bill achieves its objectives by conferring statutory immunity from criminal (local law) and civil proceedings for nuisance complaints, as I mentioned before. The bill only applies to new developments where intensification, as defined in the bill, results from that development in the relevant area outlined in schedule 1 of the bill. Residents and prospective residents are made aware of the conferred immunity through notation on land titles. So it is important that people are aware that the rights of existing landholders will not change but that those people who do in fact move into that new area cannot legitimately lodge a complaint against noise, light or pollution coming from the Milton Brewery. In other words, the brewery will continue its operations. The Brisbane City Council in Brisbane CityShape 2026, as well as the original South East Queensland Regional Plan 2005-2026, looked at ways to manage the considerable growth that is occurring in this state. Various factors were looked at such as urban consolidation, maximising public transportation and pedestrian opportunities, CBD commercial space availability, CBD decentralisation and co-location patterns, inner-city residential demand and dwelling type trends, lifestyle and entertainment preferences. So, with all of those things coming together, we have to try to manage the growth in population density in a way that will allow people to get to work and have a lifestyle that they can enjoy and in a precinct that they can enjoy as well. Under common law there are many opportunities for people to litigate against others. I think this is a good example of what is often needed elsewhere in the state, not necessarily just here in south-east Queensland. We get a lot of complaints particularly from people who buy in farming areas and near airports as those areas develop. I think the provisions of this bill could in fact be extended to those areas as well because people do force change on some industries when in fact it is not necessarily in the best interests of planning or in the best interests of that community. While I understand that there has been some consultation with the community, the bill itself only talks about consulting with the departments and, I know, with the brewery. I wonder how much public consultation has in fact been done with the community. That is an important factor that needs to be considered. The bill itself I believe will, in the long term, be of benefit to the community in that area. On that basis, the opposition will support the bill. 10 Feb 2009 Planning (Urban Encroachment—Milton Brewery) Bill 33

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! Before calling the member for Callide, I acknowledge in the public gallery teachers and students from St Paul’s School in Bald Hills, which is represented in this House by Ms Bonny Barry, the member for Aspley. Mr SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (2.37 pm): I rise to make a contribution this afternoon to the consideration of the No. 1 Planning (Urban Encroachment—Milton Brewery) Bill. While at first glance this bill would not seem to have a lot to do with either my electorate or my portfolio, except for the fact that some would suggest I have a particular interest in the Milton Brewery, I want to make the point that the broader provisions of this bill or the broader philosophy of this bill do very much have an impact on a whole range of issues which have long been issues for me as a local member and have long been issues that need to be addressed by the government in Queensland. The bill deals specifically with the Milton Brewery, and the shadow minister responsible, the member for Warrego, has gone through the provisions of the bill. Certainly the Milton Brewery is something of an icon. It is a well-recognised iconic symbol of Brisbane. I note in the minister’s second reading speech that he referred to the flashing XXXX sign—an instantly recognisable symbol of Brisbane. It is no doubt for that reason that the government has chosen to introduce a particular bill to protect that pre-established iconic business from the types of complaints that the bill provides protection from. However, it raises the question of why the government has not been able to tackle the issue in its broader sense, because the issue exists not just with an iconic business like the Milton Brewery. The issue of urban encroachment, and all of the problems that intensification of development brings when that intensified development abuts pre-existing development that is non-compatible, exists in one form or another throughout every electorate that is represented by every member of this House. In my electorate those issues have come to the fore not just with the encroachment or the intensification of urban development on traditional agricultural land uses but also with the encroachment or the intensification of urbanisation in close proximity to industry. A classic example that I think will give relevance to my participation in this debate today is the effect of urban encroachment on the Callide Power Station. Most people would understand that the Callide Power Station is a major power generator for the state. We generate in excess of 10 per cent of the state’s electricity. It is a huge industry for Biloela—the biggest town in my electorate—and it is a very important industry for the state. There have been instances where subdivision has allowed houses to be built not within close proximity but what you would consider to be a reasonable distance from industry, but then the operators of the power station have been beset by complaints from those people about noise, vibration and disturbed sleep, et cetera. Similarly, there are any number of instances on file in my office where people have made complaints to me—and I have to tell honourable members that the complaints have not been terribly well received—about agricultural activities. After they have bought a subdivision and built themselves a new house where there is a lovely view of a farm, they discover that the farmer sometimes drives his tractor, or he sometimes runs a water pump, or he sometimes weans calves and locks them in the yard overnight and the person living on the subdivision complains about it because it keeps them awake. There is a whole series of those types of complaints where the owners of a pre-existing development— whether it be the owner of a power station or the owner of a long-established agricultural enterprise— have to defend themselves. There are other examples from my electorate. I have a meatworks and a tannery in Murgon that are an important part of the economics of the Murgon community and the broader South Burnett community. For as long as I have been the local member those businesses have been troubled by complaints from people who move into the area and who suddenly discover something to complain about. It is this broader issue of the rights of a pre-existing development, the rights of a pre-existing landowner and the rights of a pre-existing business operator that has to be addressed in its entirety, not just in relation to the Milton Brewery because the Milton Brewery is iconic. It is iconic to me and it is iconic to all of us to some extent. Anyone who has grown up in Queensland with a taste for the product that the Milton Brewery produces understands the importance and the degree to which that particular business is iconic and certainly deserves the protection that the government is offering it today with this legislation. But the businesses in my electorate and in the electorate of every member who sits in this House also deserve that protection. Whether it be the Milton Brewery, or the small farmer who tries to grow lucerne and drives his tractor in the middle of the night, or the orchardist who wants to spray his macadamia nuts, or the power station that wants to generate electricity—all of those business owners deserve the same protection that is being offered to the Milton Brewery. It does not bring any credit on the government, and it certainly does not bring any credit on the minister, to introduce into the House a bill that operates in such a narrow fashion and focuses entirely on one particular situation. The government has known about this issue for a long time. It has been an issue for as long as I have been in this parliament. It was an issue before I was in this parliament. It has been an issue for many years. The previous conservative government had a proposition to address it in relation to the agricultural-urban land interface. It introduced at the time a proposition which I think was called right-to-farm legislation. It sought to address the problems of pre-existing development, restricted to that interface between agriculture and urban development. Mr Lucas: You didn’t address Milton on that basis. 34 Planning (Urban Encroachment—Milton Brewery) Bill 10 Feb 2009

Mr SEENEY: Just be patient. I hadn’t finished my sentence. I was going on to say that it is a broader issue than that. You should listen, Minister. It is a broader issue than simply the interface between urban development and agricultural use. It is a broader issue. It is an issue that centres on the rights of a pre-existing development. It centres on the rights of somebody who has undertaken an enterprise, who has invested their money, who has set up a business or who has built themselves a house and who has their rights impinged on by people who come later. There needs to be a general recognition of the rights of pre-existing owners and they need to be enshrined in law so that people are not continually put on the defensive. They should not be continually required to defend themselves against litigation that can become vexatious and can in itself simply wear away at the owners of pre- existing developments. I believe every one of us in this parliament and everyone who sits in a council, a local government or a federal member’s office across Queensland has a responsibility to reinforce the rights of those pre- existing owners. All of us are sensitive to representations from constituents and we all want to try to help constituents. When people come into our offices, we are keen to take up their case. But I believe we have to be aware that in this particular instance, when such complaints are made and the rights of the pre-existing owner or the owner of a pre-existing development are being threatened, they should be respected by us as well. Especially when we are nearing an election, especially when candidates are endeavouring to get elected to whatever level of government, people are keen to take up causes on behalf of others. I have seen instances of causes being taken up to such an extent that it becomes impossible for the pre- existing owner of a development to continue what should be their legitimate right, whether it be to carry out the normal agricultural activities associated with farming, whether it be to operate the meatworks in the way that they are licensed to do, or whether it be to produce electricity in the way that you would normally and reasonably expect a power station to produce electricity. I think Callide Power Station is the example that really underlines the absurdity. How could anybody reasonably expect that, if they build their house in close proximity to a power station, they could then object to the operation of that power station? It is almost beyond comprehension that those people could mount a reasonable argument, but those types of arguments are mounted time and time again. It is a similar situation with people who build houses or who allow urban encroachment to interface with agricultural enterprises and then complain about the agricultural enterprise. Mr Lucas: I’d like to live next door to you. Mr SEENEY: It is an issue that has to be addressed. The minister can be flippant and make jokes about it, but the responsibility lies with the minister to address this issue. The responsibility has lain with the government to address this issue for the last 10 years, and the government has done nothing about it. The government has not had the wit or the initiative to address this issue in the way that Queenslanders should be able to expect it to be addressed. It is not just an issue for the Milton Brewery. It is not just an issue for an iconic enterprise such as the Milton Brewery. It is not just an issue for particular industries such as agriculture. It is a broader planning issue where the rights of a pre-existing development need to be recognised and enshrined in law. The owners of those pre-existing developments need to be protected against continual litigation, the threat of litigation and continual complaints. Until the government bites the bullet, until the government has the courage to grasp the issue in its entirety, then we will continue, I suspect, to have individual pieces of legislation introduced into this parliament that seek to do what this piece of legislation seeks to do for the Milton Brewery. No member in this parliament today will oppose the passage of this legislation because the protection that is being given to the owners of the Milton Brewery is right and proper protection and as owners of a pre-existing development they should be able to expect and enjoy that protection. But the owners of every other pre-existing development right across Queensland should be able to expect and enjoy the same protections. The government does not have the wit and the initiative to develop legislation that will provide others with that protection and enjoyment. For 10 years it has ignored this issue. For 10 years it has struggled to address it. The fact that it has had to come in here today and protect the Milton Brewery with a narrowly focused, one-off, specific piece of legislation is an indication of the extent to which it has failed to address that issue in the Queensland community. I, like all members on this side of the House, will support the passage of this legislation today. I look forward to the day when we can come in here and consider a piece of legislation that affords the same protections and the same rights that are being given to the owners of the Milton Brewery to every owner of a pre-existing development in every seat right across Queensland. Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Treasurer) (2.51 pm): I rise to support the Planning (Urban Encroachment—Milton Brewery) Bill before the parliament today—a bill which has its application squarely within the four walls of my electorate of Mount Coot-tha. Members have already touched on the fact—and I am sure this will be a common thread to the debate that proceeds on this bill this afternoon—that Milton is a suburb that is well known to us all. It is well known not only for the Milton Brewery but for other institutions like Park Road, which was at the forefront of the new cosmopolitan 10 Feb 2009 Planning (Urban Encroachment—Milton Brewery) Bill 35 character of Brisbane’s identity, and the site of now redeveloped as Suncorp Stadium, an iconic part of Queensland’s history and infrastructure if there ever was one. The precinct around Milton is well known for the rapid development and rapid change and dynamism that exists within that urban community. It is of course the case, as I am sure every member will touch upon, that Milton is well known for the XXXX Brewery. It has been part of the landscape of Milton since the 1870s. Since the 1870s much has changed around it. Into the future I expect to see further change in and around the suburb of Milton. Frankly, it makes good planning sense to see intensification of land use in and around Milton. With Milton Road on one side, with the river and the opportunity for CityCat services on the other side, and with a railway line running along, the precinct provides the perfect opportunity for both housing people into the future and for providing employment. This bill arises from our commitment to that good planning outcome; to ensuring that the density in and around the inner city, in and around that precinct particularly between Milton Road and the Brisbane River, does provide the vehicle for new residential buildings, for new residents and for jobs. After all, providing for new residential environments and new employment opportunities on a railway line between two major thoroughfares—that is, between the river and Milton Road—makes good planning sense. I expect to see in coming years that the density in and around Milton will increase. That is a sustainable and good outcome. There is much to be said for the notion that we should concentrate residential opportunities next to employment opportunities. The ability for other people to access the employment node through public transport also makes good planning sense. In that regard, I expect to see the development of Milton proceed into the future. Of course it proceeds with the history behind it—the history and the legacy that sees the Milton Brewery placed squarely within the precinct that is the subject of this bill being debated this afternoon. In response to the contribution from the previous members, this is a particular piece of legislation. Most members in this House will recall a particular piece of legislation in the past that facilitated the development that lies at the core of this bill today—one of those developments being the proposal to build over the Milton railway line. The outcome was that specific legislation was required to contemplate the good policy outcome of building over the railway corridor. Secondly, we now see legislation to provide for an assurance that the existing uses and the interests of those residents in the community are protected into the future. Obviously, we can see many parallels with other instances. Most particularly, one issue that I was involved with in my first term in parliament was the issue of noise in the Valley. Many people bought units in the Valley and suddenly discovered they were living in a live music precinct and thereafter wanted the music to be stopped. I for one believe that the Valley was there a long time before that view emerged. Secondly, in that regard, people bought with their eyes open. The Valley is a key part of what we all love and know about Brisbane and Queensland, in my view. I think the government’s moves in providing for a special entertainment precinct were both farsighted and important in the interests of the broader community. I for one believe that it is an excellent thing that the Valley continues to be both loud and proud. The bill today takes action to ensure that the ongoing operations of the Milton Brewery can exist. The reality is that we need to be mindful of the effects of this bill. The sum total of the bill’s effect is what we might describe as a common-sense effect. It has, as the previous member noted, at its core the notion that having moved into an area a person accepts the existing land use environment. The reality is that this bill will provide for a differing entitlement for new residents, and I emphasise that—not all new residents, but a particular class: only those who wish to purchase and reside in buildings other than townhouses and existing residential buildings as described as class 1a and 1b, more particularly, a standard house or standard town house. The effects of this bill do not apply to everyone living within the precinct. Anyone who moves into the precinct and into any of those types of buildings will have no rights reduced and there will be no effect on them; the sum total effect for them is nil. The only application is to those new residents who buy into new unit developments knowing that the brewery is in place. It applies only in the following circumstances. It applies to the existing limitation of the current operations of the brewery. That is, should the brewery operate outside its existing licence then everyone’s rights exist. Should it operate within its licence then those new residents in new unit dwellings will not have the opportunity to pursue vexatious or nuisance complaints against the brewery operating lawfully. The key point to emphasise is ‘operating lawfully’. Should the brewery be operating unlawfully then all those rights are preserved to all residents in all circumstances. Secondly, it does not apply should there be an intensification on the site. That is, should the brewery seek to exceed its current operations the protection afforded provides only for a protection of the status quo. It does not in operation protect an intensification of the site. 36 Planning (Urban Encroachment—Milton Brewery) Bill 10 Feb 2009

Thirdly, if a new licence is issued because of changing circumstances, because of changing expectations, because of scientific evidence that a new environmental licence is to be issued not by agreement but issued by licensing authorities of whatever description, then the protection does not extend to the new more stringent licence conditions. This preserves merely the status quo and only applies to new residents in those new unit developments moving in next to the brewery. On that point we need to be crystal clear. In sum total, we can say that the bill does not include a retrospective component that protects past emissions from legal proceedings, it does not override the common law rights of the residents of existing developments and it does not of itself prescribe the emission levels for air, noise and light. Those will still be set through the various licensing arrangements and can be set without agreement. It is important also to emphasise this fact: the bill contemplates a notification process for new residents buying in developments that would be covered by the operation of this bill. Should those notices not be provided according to the scheme as set out in the bill, it provides for any contracts entered into to be terminated—an important protection. There is a very clear approach of ‘caveat emptor’ in this bill, in its operation and in the way in which it is contemplated to operate. As I said, this does not apply to class 1a and 1b buildings—that is, houses and town houses. It does not apply to existing residents. It does not apply to new residents who buy existing homes and town houses. It is quarantined and protected in its operation to only those new unit developments. Ultimately, this provides a framework for the continued operation of the suburb of Milton as is presently contemplated—nothing more, nothing less. It preserves perfectly the rights of existing residents. It preserves perfectly the rights of new residents moving in to those existing developments, and its operation is circumscribed in its entirety. Frankly, I can envisage a time when the Milton Brewery will not be operating at Milton. I can envisage a time—and for evidence in this regard one needs to look no further than the excellent redevelopment of the Petrie Terrace barracks site or the redevelopment of the Ithaca Ice Works, both former sites that had been derelict for some time—when, more than anything, simple economics probably dictates that the Milton Brewery will not be there forever. It is a prime piece of inner-city land. It is part of our heritage. The heritage buildings should be a part of our future. Whether it continues into the future—in 10, 20, 30 or 40 years time—to operate as a brewery I think is a very live question. I foresee an opportunity for mixed-use development, for that area to be opened up as part of the development that is occurring in the inner city and to be part of the story of Brisbane’s growth as a city of the 21st century. Clearly, this bill provides for the existing operation through that time of change, through that time of dynamic development, of a suburb and a community that has a very rich history and, in my view, a very strong future. I commend the bill to the House. Mr HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (3.01 pm): Urban environments are full of conflicting land uses that have the potential to cause great stress and disquiet to the community. Indeed, in this debate so far the member for Callide has focused on the conflicts in what I would describe as periurban areas. But this bill focuses on a specific urban conflict. By way of illustration, let me refer to another urban land use conflict that I am becoming intimately aware of. Recent media reports have highlighted the challenges around the Wilston State School in the redistributed electorate of Stafford. Parent and staff parking, traffic generally and the development of school facilities have all been the cause of concerns from neighbouring residents to varying degrees. While in that instance student safety needs to be the highest concern, I can understand that some people see it as an issue of conflicting land use. The blog response to the issue in Friday’s Courier-Mail could be summarised as ‘the school was there first’, and that is a very fair point to make. Wilston State School was opened in 1920, and I venture that none of the school neighbours were resident then. However, I would also venture that there were very few students in the 1920s who arrived by motor vehicle. They walked or rode bikes, and I suggest that this was the case for the vast majority until about 20 years ago. Equally, the size of the school is different and the intensification of land use is manifest. So I want to suggest that, as is always the case in the context of land use planning, there is more than one side to the story. Equally, there is an increasing need to balance the importance of maintaining industry and managing the growth of the community. A key growth area that the Treasurer has referred to eloquently in the debate so far that faces this challenge is the Milton area, which hosts existing industrial uses but also faces increasing pressure and interest for more intense residential development given its attractive environs, its closeness to Brisbane’s CBD and the significant opportunity it offers as a transit oriented development area. As a result, the Queensland government has developed a responsible approach to these emerging issues in Milton through this bill before the House, the Planning (Urban Encroachment—Milton Brewery) Bill. The introduction of this bill provides clarity in an environment and at a time where it is vital to maintain the growth of existing industry and maintain attractive, livable communities. This bill provides an approach to managing these interests at a time when this issue can be expected, in a persisting environment of growth, to continue to be realised across other areas of the state and across a range of different industries and established uses facing pressure for more and more intense residential development. 10 Feb 2009 Planning (Urban Encroachment—Milton Brewery) Bill 37

This bill establishes important conditions that provide clarity to both the community and an existing industry in a specific area around the Castlemaine brewery at Milton. Under the bill, the owners or occupiers of properties in new developments that fall within the bill’s parameters, as was well set out by the Treasurer, for relevant development that results in intensification would be unable to take nuisance based proceedings against the Milton Brewery. This protection for the brewery is a specific one and it is a limited one. It only applies if the basis of the legal action in nuisance arises from air, noise and light emissions where the brewery is operating within its licence conditions. It also only applies to certain relevant development—that is, the protection of the brewery is limited to pursuit by owners or occupiers of premises within a small defined area and that fall within the certain types of new development defined in the bill that results from a more intense density in the area. The Castlemaine brewery has operated at Milton since 1877 and is genuinely iconic. Even using the member for Southport’s pedantic definition of that term, which others in the House may be aware of, it could be ventured that for some in our state the small picture of the brewery on the label of XXXX products has a religious meaning. It is therefore right that the industrial use at the brewery be protected to support employment but also as a kind of cultural and heritage protection. However, the protection will not apply if the Milton Brewery seeks intensification of its use at the site. The bill provides protection to the Milton Brewery only to the extent of its current licence conditions at the time of commencement. The Milton Brewery loses its protection if it is subsequently authorised to produce greater emissions of light or noise or a greater release of contaminants into the atmosphere. Obviously, it has no protection if it is operating outside the limits of its licence. For transparency, there will be a requirement for the brewery to make its licence conditions publicly available for the life of its protection under this legislation. Thus, the bill before the House strikes the right balance, which I explored in my reference to the Wilston State School and which the member for Callide focused on in his contribution. The bill is in the zone where it sets that right balance. The difference between this instance of the Milton Brewery and the example of Wilston State School is that the current use of the brewery is well defined by operational licences which can be made public to the whole of the community. These limitations in the brewery’s protection under the bill have been designed in a manner that achieves a balance, as I say, between the community and the existing use at the Milton Brewery. These conditions continue to encourage and provide a mechanism that allows sustainable growth in Queensland and provide clarity for future owners and occupiers of property within the Milton railway precinct that forms the affected area. This bill allows the Milton Brewery to continue its operation in an environment in which the obligations and rights of the brewery, developers and the new owners or occupiers are clear within the ambit of the legislation and only provides protection for the brewery to the extent of its current licence conditions. The bill includes provision for five-yearly reviews of its operation, and this will allow government to review the impact on residents of the new development. It will be able to review the changes in the brewery’s current operations and obviously the land use issues in the area more generally and issues that may have arisen due to climate change, technological advancement and indeed population growth. This bill sets out a clear and enabling environment in which to manage growth in the Milton area. It sets out requirements for both the brewery and certain new developers and occupiers to enable the continued operation of a well-established business as well as the management of growth that will inevitably come to the area, and which will be very good for that area and for the development and nature of the urban environment of our city. Put simply, complaints from those new residents about the rich, malty smell or the blinking of the famous XXXX sign will not be entertained. I commend this bill, trusting that Mr Fourex will look down on the members of this House, the future residents and the users of the Milton transit oriented development and wink. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—LNP) (3.10 pm): I support what the government is doing with this bill, but I am appreciative of the opportunity to make some comments because I think this bill demonstrates a lot of the stresses and competing interests that we see, particularly in the city of Brisbane as it develops— as it gets bigger and the density increases. The bill provides for immunity from civil and criminal prosecution for nuisance complaints in relation to three things: emissions, noise and light. I am sure that from time to time every member of this House has constituents coming to see them about these issues. In fact, issues relating to noise and lights in particular can be some of the most bitter disputes that members come across. The provisions of this bill apply only to new developments—that is, new residences—and only where that new development provides for an increased density. The bill attempts to ensure the rights of new residents and purchasers by requiring the affixing of a notice effectively so that new residents cannot come into the area and say, ‘We didn’t know that this brewery operated 24 hours a day and that trucks came backwards and forwards, that it had bright lights and the like.’ I think that is a very important part of the bill, because there have been some fairly harsh words said here today from members on both sides about people who have recently moved to an area and then find something in that area which was 38 Planning (Urban Encroachment—Milton Brewery) Bill 10 Feb 2009 pre-existing to complain about. But there are occasions where people genuinely did not know what they were in for and I think it is an important aspect of this bill that there is a requirement that purchasers be notified that there is a restriction upon their rights. I think the government has possibly learned from some of the experiences that were referred to by the member for Mount Coot-tha in relation to the Valley. I recall that when the Sun newspaper building was redeveloped there were considerable complaints about the noise that came out of the Valley. In some ways that reminds me of an episode of Seinfeld where the Kenny Rogers chicken joint was put up next door— Mr Hinchliffe: That’s your only reference. Jerry Seinfeld needs to get a speechwriting credit from you. Dr FLEGG: You can learn a lot about life from Seinfeld. The Kenny Rogers chicken joint was put up next to Kramer’s apartment. That episode reminds me that sometimes people in urban areas have enormous problems with these sorts of issues. I hope sincerely that one of the effects of this bill is that when we develop these areas—when the old Milton tennis courts site is developed, when the rail development is put in over Milton—the developers take into account the nature of the area in which they are developing. You can go into some homes around inner Brisbane and hear the difference between a building that is double glazed to prevent traffic noise and some places where developers have used traditional glazing just to save a bit of money. That ends up creating fairly substantial problems for tenants. So there is a message in this bill. I hope the fact that developers will be required to put in a notice for purchasers leads them, in their planning, to think about how they will minimise the effect of noise, the effect of emissions and the effect of lights on the properties that they will develop. The member for Callide spoke about the rights of pre-existing businesses. Another example that comes under this category is pre-existing transport corridors, such as the Kenmore bypass. The corridor is on the books, but people who subsequently have come to the area do not want to see that corridor used for the purpose for which it was set aside. In that setting, we already have provision for a notice to be placed through property searches. But it is important that people realise that, whether it is a transport corridor set aside for use by the whole community or whether it is a pre-existing business that predated the development, the owners or the other residents of those areas have rights. There is no doubt that the XXXX Brewery, particularly for a member such as me who comes from the western suburbs, has an iconic status in Brisbane. The member for Callide referred to the fact that he had a taste for the product and that made it iconic. I can tell members that I do not share his taste for the product, but being— Mr Lucas: Are you in the grip of the product? Dr FLEGG: If it was from the Barossa Valley, maybe. In terms of being someone from the western suburbs of Brisbane who drives past the brewery at least a couple of times a day, I can say that it is an icon of western Brisbane. I note that the member for Mount Coot-tha speculated about possible future uses of the brewery and the fact that the value of the real estate it is on would suggest that it would not be a brewery forever. I know that in Perth there was a brewery on the Swan River which has been converted to upmarket housing. There has often been speculation that the same thing would happen in regard to the XXXX Brewery. Anyone who seeks to move to that area should consider the fact that for the foreseeable future the XXXX Brewery will operate as a business, that it will operate 24 hours a day, and that as well as the attractiveness of its iconic status, there is a downside, which is truck movements, noise, fumes and light, as one would expect from any sort of industry. In some ways I think this bill reflects the changing nature of Brisbane. If we look at Brisbane post war when we opened up what to Brisbane residents in those days were outlying suburbs—the likes of Wavell Heights and Kenmore; those sorts of areas—the growing population of Brisbane was housed in what today we would call urban sprawl. The housing of choice of the day was a quarter-acre block and a home. Queensland has had to make a few hard choices as to whether that model of development continues or whether we go for a higher-density model. This is a matter on which we have supported the government. Urban sprawl is no longer the appropriate way of dealing with Brisbane’s growth. Interestingly, that change in housing mode has coincided with a change in people’s housing taste. With the more diverse types of families that we have these days, increasingly people have chosen different types of housing. In many respects, for many sections of our community higher density accommodation—the residential unit—is preferred to houses. The change in planning that has been brought about for good reasons—the reduction of urban sprawl and also the desire to appropriately provide transport and other services—has coincided with a change in the way people live and a change in their requirement for housing. I will say a few words in relation to Milton where it is envisaged that this would develop into a TOD—a transit oriented development. The concept of transit oriented developments has received wide support, certainly on both sides of this House, almost to the point where it has become an article of faith. 10 Feb 2009 Planning (Urban Encroachment—Milton Brewery) Bill 39

But there are a few words of caution to be said in relation to transit oriented development. I recently had the opportunity to view some of the new transport infrastructure in Perth. It was absolutely fascinating to see and to think about the possibilities for Brisbane if some of those ideas were applied. If we are looking at encouraging people to use public transport instead of private cars, and I think that is a worthwhile goal, then having residents build on or near transport is obviously part of that answer and that is why we have supported that. But it is not all of the answer. If we want to go on to similarly promote the use of public transport two other things were very, very apparent in Perth. One of them was the particular need for park ‘n’ ride arrangements. The point was made by some senior people in Perth that, if 500 units are built on top of a railway station, at any given time you might have 50, 60, 70 or 80 people using the public transport, but if you have a park ‘n’ ride with a thousand parks there are a thousand people using public transport. That is exactly what they have done very successfully in Perth. I do not think that is a concept that has totally sunk in here in Queensland. The other area that I found particularly interesting, and that has particular application in places such as the Milton Railway Station, is connectivity. People cannot and do not all live within walking distance of heavy rail. There is great potential for getting people out of their cars and onto public transport if convenience and safety is provided for them. At a number of new railway stations in Perth a deck has been built over the platforms on which there is essentially a bus station. The bus stations are synchronised with the times of the trains so that they meet at the same time. There has been enormous patronage because people can hop on the bus from their home, hop off the bus which is coordinated— and in some cases the modes of transport are held back so that they meet—go down the escalators and straight onto the train and straight into Perth. That is obviously easier if you are building in a greenfields area but it is by no means impossible at places in Brisbane like Milton or Indooroopilly, and certainly it would not be impossible in places like Boondall where there is even more space. If we take as an article of faith that we will have this dramatic increase in public transport use because we are building homes on top of rail we stand to lose sight of the fact that even greater gains in public transport use can be provided if we take into account these other areas. The other and final cautionary note that I would sound in relation to this legislation is that having essentially removed some rights from new residents the operators of the brewery should not be taking this as an excuse or an opportunity to not do the best that it can. If this legislation envisages that a continuation of the present levels of emissions, the present levels of noise and the like is permitted in relation to new developments, I would hope that the operator of the brewery does not take that to mean it does not need to do the best it can on emissions and noise. I hope that the operator also takes the attitude that, although it has some protection from litigation and legal recourse, it should still treat new residents with respect and where issues arise still seek to deal with them on a cooperative level. I think this is potentially one of the biggest downsides. I support this legislation and I think it is good common sense, but potentially one of the most significant downsides is that a business that enjoys this sort of protection can then say, ‘Well’—I was going to say ‘bugger you’ but I probably should not—‘forget about it’ to residents. I think that despite the protection offered here the operator should have regard to getting the best outcomes that it can for local residents. This is a very interesting bill because it raises a whole range of issues about urban living and about the changing urban landscape of Brisbane. Brisbane is a fabulous and very exciting city. Some of the changes will have an impact on people and some people will have difficulty adjusting to some of those changes, particularly those in the surrounding density. We have enough difficulties with transport in Brisbane. I am pleased to be able to support the bill. Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (3.26 pm): It is my pleasure to rise to contribute to the debate on the Planning (Urban Encroachment—Milton Brewery) Bill. I note the contributions of the honourable shadow minister, the member for Warrego, and other members on this side. I also note the contributions of the members on the government side and the local member, the member for Mount Coot-tha. I want to put on record my support for the bill and also, as the member for Moggill just mentioned, speak about some planning principles. These are the dilemmas that we face as local members, as the honourable member for Callide mentioned. Especially when we are candidates seeking election we want to carry the torch for anyone who comes to us with any of their issues and these are the sorts of issues people come to us with. This happens in my electorate of Surfers Paradise a couple of times a year. Indy and schoolies are the issues that I will come back to if I am given a little bit of leeway to speak about these planning principles. I know local government has needed special zones, such as the Valley and Surfers Paradise, but at times during schoolies we end up with issues that are seemingly not covered by existing legislation and which do not allow for what the honourable member for Mount Coot-tha, the Treasurer, spoke about— that we need to keep this balance between community and existing use. Residents may have lived in the area before the Rugby field or before the airport or before the schoolies carnival and yet these things have been thrust upon them and they feel that their amenity is affected by what is allowed to go on. They perceive that government departments do not liaise between each other and that affects their lifestyle. 40 Planning (Urban Encroachment—Milton Brewery) Bill 10 Feb 2009

When I speak about the Milton Brewery, I have fond memories of good friends who lived near Suncorp or the old Lang Park. Of course, there was the double-edged sword of being able to visit them in Nairn Street, Milton, and wandering down to Suncorp or Lang Park as it was at the time. Then, of course, there were local people unhappy about the foot traffic going to Lang Park. Similarly, we have seen local residents very unhappy about any major football games being held at Ballymore. We as legislators have to strike a balance in these areas, whether they are airports or football fields, because some local residents may say they do not want them there. I know the member for Mount Coot-tha has spoken before about traffic restrictions on game days which have made things very difficult for local businesspeople. I am sorry that my friend sold his house in Nairn Street, Milton because now I have to try to find a different park when I go to Suncorp. As the honourable minister stated in his second reading speech, the legislation seeks to provide clarity and certainty for the operators and employees of Lion Nathan’s brewery, as well as developers and residents in the vicinity of the Milton Brewery. The object clause of the bill states that the purpose of the bill is to protect the existing use of the Milton Brewery, principally by restricting certain civil proceedings and criminal prosecutions with regard to its commercial activities. That objective is reflected in part 3, clause 8 of the bill which places restrictions on particular legal proceedings. This section applies to affected persons defined as owners, occupiers or lessees of relevant development applications, as well as future owners of relevant premises. Clause 2 states that the affected person cannot take a civil proceeding or a criminal proceeding relating to a local law against any person in relation to the claim if there has been no contravention of development conditions and environmental requirements under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 have been complied with. The main civil action which this legislation seeks to bar is the common law tort of nuisance. As the minister stated, landowners and tenants are entitled to quiet enjoyment of property without interference. Interference with the quiet enjoyment of property gives rise to an action in nuisance. This is a long-held principle of our common law system developed in Britain during the time when a man’s home was his castle. Thus, at the outset it appears that this legislation takes away a person’s well-established right to the use and quiet enjoyment of their property. However, as the UK became more industrialised and urban development met industry, it became necessary to examine the right to quiet enjoyment with the reality of modern town planning. The landmark case of Sturges v Bridgman gave the courts the opportunity to adapt the age-old quiet enjoyment principle in light of this reality. Long before council zoning, a physician moved into a property that backed onto the property of a confectioner where he had produced sweets on the premises for a number of years. Upon taking up residence, the doctor decided to construct a consultation room at the back of his property for the purpose of private practice. Effectively, the physician’s consulting room and the confectioner’s industrial kitchen backed onto each other, which obviously caused problems for the doctor. As such, in the courts he brought an action against his neighbours for nuisance. The court grappled with the same sorts of issues that one can imagine might arise between residents of Milton and Lion Nathan when Lion Nathan is brewing. In Sturges v Bridgman the main issue was whether the defendant had acquired a right to create a nuisance by way of noise and vibration by virtue of his longstanding practice. Both at trial and on appeal the English courts concluded that a person cannot acquire the right to create a nuisance, and ordered an injunction against the confectioner. Whilst this is a 19th century case, it is directly relevant to this bill in the sense that at common law the Milton Brewery would not be exempt from legal action by residents whose quiet enjoyment of property may be interfered with on the basis that they were there first. This bill seeks to give industry a legislative protection against such action being taken. It is necessary to extend this protection for a number of reasons and the minister mentioned one, which is transport planning. As Queensland’s population continues to grow, particularly in the south- east, more housing, transport and infrastructure will need to be provided to meet increased demand. It makes sense, then, that high-density development occur around existing public transport hubs such as train stations and bus interchanges. Milton is one such area and, of course, the honourable member for Moggill has just referred to a recent trip of the Travelsafe Committee to Perth, where they looked at transport oriented developments. The English courts predicted these circumstances where industry meets suburbia. Of course, some time later in south-east Queensland we are facing the same thing. Lord Justice Thesiger mused over some of the problems that might arise as a result of a rigid application of the Sturges v Bridgman principle, taking the example of ‘a blacksmith’s forge built away from all habitations, but to which, in course of time, habitations approach.’ The court found no simple solution to the problem. While it was acknowledged that a strict application of the principle would cause, in some circumstances, hardship and perhaps injustice, they submitted the negation of the principle would lead even more to individual hardship and, at the same time, would produce a prejudicial effect upon the development of land for residential purposes. Mr Lucas: This reminds me of my tort assignment. 10 Feb 2009 Planning (Urban Encroachment—Milton Brewery) Bill 41

Mr LANGBROEK: It could well have been. This bill seeks to consolidate these views. On the one hand, it recognises that the development of land for residential purposes is a desirable pursuit if we are to meet the challenges of population growth. On the other hand, it recognises that in allowing residential developments to occur in the vicinity of industry those industries may be liable for actions in nuisance. In order to provide certainty to both industry and residents, this bill clarifies their respective legal positions. Developers may build and residents may live in areas in close proximity to commercial areas. However, they do so in the knowledge that neighbouring industries have the right to carry on their activities, even where it may cause some degree of nuisance. This is an imperfect solution but, realistically, it is the best possible result. In many instances, factories and industries are built on prime real estate, close to public transport and close to the heart of the city. It would be impractical and unjust to order long-established industries to pack up and move out in order to free up land for residential development. At the same time, we cannot afford to protect industry at the expense of providing much- needed housing for Queensland’s increasing population. We must strike a balance, as other members have said. I believe that the bill achieves this. I am sure the 19th century English lords would have approved, too. They said that in some circumstances the Sturges v Bridgman principle should be applied in reference to the circumstances of the case. To quote, ‘What would be a nuisance in Belgrade Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey.’ To use an earlier example, this essentially means that the blacksmith may be able to carry on his business where the locality is devoted to a particular trade or manufacture carried on by the traders or manufacturers in a particular and established manner, not constituting a public nuisance, that is, the nuisance caused by trade and/or manufacture may not be unreasonable in the context of the locality. The courts, both in Australia and the UK, will measure reasonableness against a locality yardstick. For example, in Dunstan v King, in ruling that a Dandenong sawmill in Victoria was perpetrating a nuisance, the court surmised that the same complaint may not succeed if the character of the neighbourhood had become industrial rather than rural. It is important to note, as I have already referred to, that local government zoning has overcome some of the issues that arise with respect to locality. Of course, in the time that I have been in this place, special zones have been declared in Surfers Paradise and the Valley. This bill establishes that while from time to time some nuisance may occur, either by way of smells, sound, pollution or any other hazard, as a result of the brewery’s commercial operations, it should not be considered unreasonable in these circumstances. To this end, a statute barring actions in nuisance will override the common law with respect to certain claims. It is important to note that the bill imposes certain obligations on the brewery, developers and sellers to notify prospective buyers of their rights and restrictions with respect to this legislation. These are detailed in part 4 of the bill, which provide penalties for breaches as well as affirming the buyer’s right to rescind a contract where disclosure has not been made. This is an important aspect of the legislation because it ensures that any person who proceeds with the purchase is well aware of the issues associated with the area. As I said at the beginning of my contribution, I am aware that there are no easy solutions to nuisance complaints. Every year thousands of school leavers descend on Surfers Paradise for the annual schoolies festival. While that does not deal with the specifics of this bill, I would appreciate the opportunity of speaking to the House about the fact that I hear complains from residents in neighbouring high-rises about the level of noise from schoolies. This has to do with planning, because these people live within the special zone of Surfers Paradise. There are organised events such as beach parties organised by the Department of Communities. While there is a public perception that schoolies is well maintained and under control, often those parties rage until 3 am, which causes a lot of nuisance and distress for many of my constituents. It would be just as if, as the member for Moggill suggested, the Milton Brewery took advantage of what it may perceive to be the liberties available to it as a result of the passing of this bill and started doing something that it does not currently do. The member for Moggill mentioned that it is important that XXXX, or Lion Nathan, ensures that it thinks of the local residents. The frustration with schoolies it that many of my constituents have to suffer nuisance and distress. One of my constituents who lives in the Q1 Tower, Dr Clark, has written to me and to the minister for communities. He outlines the problem that the noise from the beach parties goes on until 3 am. Minister Lindy Nelson-Carr, the member for Mundingburra, wrote back and stated that— ... every effort was undertaken to minimise noise levels during the construction of the fenced precinct and throughout the period of the response. These efforts included ensuring the audio system was installed to face the east to direct noise away from residential areas, regularly monitoring noise levels on the beach and into the precinct, and installing a hotline for local residents to express concerns regarding noise levels. Unfortunately, there was no liaison between the Department of Communities and the police. In his letters to me and to the minister, Dr Clark states that he is very concerned that, when thousands of people rang Surfers Paradise police, the police said that they did not have an audiometer. He wants to know if there is an official permit that allows schoolies to exceed all legal noise levels in a dense residential area to 3 am. He asks what noise levels are allowed until what time. This is of great concern 42 Planning (Urban Encroachment—Milton Brewery) Bill 10 Feb 2009 to the people of Surfers Paradise, as it will be to be the people of Milton if, in this case, the brewery does not do what it is supposed to under the requirements of the law. In the case of my constituent I note that we await a response from the minister for communities. Apart from those concerns, I commend the bill to the House. Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (3.39 pm): I rise to support the Planning (Urban Encroachment— Milton Brewery) Bill. The Milton Brewery has operated on its current site since the 1870s. The neighbouring Milton Railway Station, with its proximity to the inner city, is slated for high-density residential development through a transit oriented development. The purpose of the bill is to protect the established brewery by conferring immunity from criminal (local law) and civil proceedings for releasing contaminants in the atmosphere, noise and light emissions based nuisance complaints in circumstances where the brewery is operating within its licence conditions. To put it in simpler terms, this is anti NIMBY legislation. The population of south-east Queensland is growing. That growth is greatest in Ipswich, which I represent, with the regional plan projecting city-wide growth averaging 4½ per cent per annum over the next 20 years. Faced with that growth—which no government could stop even if it wanted to—we must choose urban densification or urban sprawl. This government, through its regional plan, has chosen a balance which incorporates densification through the development of transit oriented developments at key sites such as Woolloongabba, Albion, Fitzgibbon and this one—Milton. The transit oriented development concept is a simple one. TODs create affordable inner-city living. They ensure that we get best usage of transport infrastructure and they avoid the massive environmental and energy costs of urban sprawl. With its proximity to the city, its railway, bus and ferry connections and its existing retail precinct, Milton is a great place for a TOD. The risk, though, is that people move in and then begin to complain about noise, air or light pollution from the pre-existing brewery. While on the face of it such a prospect may seem outrageous, this kind of thing in fact happens all the time. Brisbane people will well recall the controversy around noise from late-night music in the Valley created by people who moved into the Sun Building in the heart of Brisbane’s entertainment precinct and then complained that there were bands playing loud music late at night. At Roma Street people have moved into apartments overlooking hundred-year-old rail yards and then complained about the noise of passing trains. And in Ipswich I have had complaints from people who have purchased property near the railway line—a railway line that has been there since 1874. They have moved in and then complained about the noise from coal trains. Further, I have had new residents who have moved close to the Churchill Abattoir only to get there and demand that the decades-old abattoir be closed down, presumably with its 200-odd workers being sacked. The principle implicit in this bill, then, is a simple one: the brewery was there first. The bill does not preclude continuing improvements in environmental standards over time. It is fair to assume, I would think, that as technology improves the brewery will create less noise and odour. I think it would be fair to say that, like most industry, it is cleaner now than it was 30 years ago. Should standards improve and the conditions of the brewery’s environmental licence become higher, so nearby residents can expect compliance with those tighter conditions. But it will not be possible to move in and then complain about the brewery’s operations if the brewery is complying with the conditions of its current licence. While this legislation is a good starting point because, as the member for Stafford pointed out, the Milton Brewery has existing defined environmental conditions, I would hope that over time we will see more legislation like this. Whilst change, including in established suburbs, is sometimes hard to deal with, the simple fact is that, if we are to affordably accommodate population growth without destroying all of south-east Queensland’s bushland, we must see appropriate increases in density in the inner suburbs. Further, it is reasonable to apply the principle of ‘buyer beware’. If you buy a property near a brewery, they are going to make beer. If you move next to a railway line, there will be trains. And if you buy near an abattoir, you will experience some odour. It is not reasonable to move in having not done your homework and then expect the pre-existing land use to change. I note the shadow spokesman’s comments that he thought these principles may need to be further enshrined in time. I agree with those sentiments, and I commend the bill to the House. Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP) (3.44 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Planning (Urban Encroachment—Milton Brewery) Bill 2008. This bill is an important measure in addressing the concerns resulting from increased and intensified development in relation to a specific area around the Milton Brewery. On a broader level, the bill serves as a valuable illustration of the way the interests of industry, developers, landowners and occupiers may be balanced at a time when the issue of new development encroaching on existing established uses will continue to be evident across other areas of the state. This bill impacts on a small, very specific area of Brisbane and in relation to only specific types of development in that area. The legislation will only apply to developments which will result in an intensification of the area in the Milton rail precinct, which is identified in a map that is part of the bill. This is based on the map contained in the current draft of the Brisbane City Council’s Milton Rail Station Precinct Plan. 10 Feb 2009 Planning (Urban Encroachment—Milton Brewery) Bill 43

The bill identifies what development is considered to result in an intensification of the area. These developments are called relevant development applications in the bill. A relevant development application under the bill is a development application for a material change of use of premises or reconfiguring a lot if the application has been lodged and approved after the commencement of the legislation or lodged but not decided before the legislation commences. However, there are a number of developments which are excluded from the operation of the bill. These are development applications for buildings and structures classified under the Building Code of Australia as class 1a, class 1b and class 10 buildings or structures. These are essentially developments which are not in the nature of large-scale residential developments and do not accommodate large numbers of residents, such as single dwellings, townhouses, private garages, or guesthouses or hostels that accommodate a small number of persons. To illustrate, a class 1a single dwelling may include a detached house, row house, terrace house, town house or villa unit. A class 1b building may include a boarding house, guesthouse, hostel or the like, if the total area is not more than 300 square metres and where no more than 12 persons reside. Class 10 buildings or structures include non-habitable premises such as a private garage, carport or shed, a fence, mast, antenna, retaining or freestanding wall, swimming pool or the like. These developments are specifically excluded as they are relatively low-scale and will have little impact on the population density in the area. The bill will apply to new developments which are relevant to two or more sole-occupancy units and have been given approval but no final inspection certificate. These are developments that will intensify the area by increasing the number of residents in the vicinity and therefore the risk of legal action by owners and tenants in these developments who may seek to make nuisance complaints against the Milton Brewery. A key way this bill achieves its objective is by identifying developments that will lead to an intensification of the area around the Milton Brewery. The scope of the legislation will be limited to new developments which will have a real impact on the population density in the area, such as multi-unit residential dwellings. Given the current population trend and the increased demand for infill and development in urban areas, the number of these developments is anticipated to continue to increase. This bill has a limited and clear application. It clearly expresses the types of developments that will lead to an intensification of development in the area and therefore ‘encroach’ upon an existing and long-established industrial use in the area—the iconic Milton Brewery. It is with great pleasure that I commend the bill to the House. Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—GRN) (3.49 pm): I want to place a couple of comments on record about this bill. I think TODs are great. They are very smart and very sensible, but I am not thrilled with this bill. It takes away from new residents a range of rights and I think it sets a concerning precedent since it removes rights from a certain type of person; namely, new residents—in this case, specifically people living within new TODs and particularly unit dwellers. We have never had different rights for different residents in the past, and I do not want to see people living in TODs and unit dwellers disadvantaged. The supposed need for this bill is a direct consequence of what happens when you try to retrofit planning schemes. We are seeing some real problems with this in the greater Brisbane region at the moment. We need to have good planning from day one. I will be supporting this bill, but I do not want this to set a precedent for future developments that may take place. I want to address fairly quickly a couple of comments made by the member for Moggill about residents concerned about the proposed Kenmore bypass. I do not want to put words in the mouth of the member for Moggill, but I think he suggested that residents were being a little bit unreasonable, having lived close to what was a preserved transport corridor and now finding that there is a major road proposal. I think it is important to note that there are folk living in the suburb of Indooroopilly who are more than one kilometre away from the preserved road corridor for the Kenmore bypass who are being told that their home will be bulldozed to construct the roads. It is not just a case of folk who have moved into a suburb and they got a slightly cheaper property because it was backing onto a road corridor. We are often seeing some significant consequences for people who live in many cases quite a long way away from these proposed constructions. I agree with the member for Moggill’s suggestions for park ‘n’ rides. I want to put on record today the desperate need for a park ‘n’ ride at the Indooroopilly Railway Station. I have spoken in this place many times in the past about this issue. There is vacant land that was being used by contractors engaged by Queensland Rail for the upgrade of the railway station. It was the site office. It was parking for all sorts of construction vehicles and staff private vehicles during the construction phase. It is currently fenced off and no-one is using it. It is an ideal location for a community car park at Indooroopilly and it should simply be built immediately. I want to make it very clear that I do not think this legislation should provide carte blanche to the folk who are running the XXXX Brewery at any given point in time to not improve the things that they do. If legislation is going through the parliament to provide them with certainty in how they conduct their business and exempt them from future litigation, it is reasonable to expect that they will take every 44 Planning (Urban Encroachment—Milton Brewery) Bill 10 Feb 2009 opportunity and every step to make sure that where they can they improve their relationship with the local community. Where they can, they should not do deliveries and have large trucks rolling through the suburb making noise at night. They should not leave lights on, unnecessarily annoying new residents. I think it is only fair and only reasonable that we would expect that from them. This has to be a two-way street in that regard. I will be supporting the legislation but, again, I am deeply concerned that it may set a precedent where residents who live in future TODs are expected to put up with local conditions that are not the sorts of conditions that members of this parliament would be happy to live with. There is a housing crisis in Australia, in Queensland and in Brisbane. It is very difficult to find accommodation for a great number of people, and I do not want to see that resulting in a race to the bottom in terms of the conditions that are provided for people who live in units and people who live in future TODs. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (3.54 pm): I rise to speak to the Planning (Urban Encroachment—Milton Brewery) Bill and to add to the comments of previous speakers in relation to the challenge that is placed before all planning authorities in breaking the nexus between existing land use and encroaching land uses. I believe the member for Callide summed up the problem that faces many people not only in Queensland but also in any developing area regarding pre-existing land use, not all of which has been through the formal planning process because many land uses developed before town plans et cetera were even in existence. In subsequent town plans their existence may have been recognised, but the placement of those industries in the main have occurred, if they have been there for 60, 70, 80 or 100 years, because they were in proximity either to the type of soil, the type of land, water or other elements that are necessary for the production of whatever it is that they are producing. I think every one of us in this parliament would be able to cite instances in our electorates where pre-existing land use has been compromised particularly by urban encroachment. One startling one that occurred was a garage at Benaraby. Two brothers developed both a garage and a caravan park, and over time the garage become a 24-hour service station. A lot of truckies stopped there for a meal, a shower and a rest. The caravan park changed hands and not the most recent owner, because that is the new owner, but the one prior to that found a lot of opportunity to complain about the activities of the garage and, more particularly, the number of trucks that stopped that had refrigeration units operating which, because of their nature, have to keep operating. It got to the point where the complaining and the complainant became so insistent that the garage’s operating hours were reduced to closing at 10 pm and reopening at I think 5 am, which had a significant financial impact on the garage lessee. I think the member for Ipswich also talked about the people who come later on, and I think that is a very important principle. As any of us who have worked in local council know, if you are placed in a position as a council of having to identify and acquire a new landfill site it is one of the most horrendous processes that you have to go through simply because you are trying to find an optimum place that will contain leachates, which is sufficiently close enough to be cost competitive but also far enough away from any resident so that there is no problem with odour and other nuisance. Having found a site, most councils hang on to it for dear life. As other speakers have already outlined, I have more of a problem with people who buy a property in proximity to an existing operation irrespective of what that operation is and then make it their life’s work to complain and have that operation either significantly reduced or removed all together. I guess one of the most repeated statements I have made to people in my electorate who have come to me with problems is that, if you buy in an area where there is a pre-existing operation, you really do buy with your eyes wide open. It is important to remember that, if you buy near a coalmine, there will be coal trains which will run day and night. If you buy near shunting yards, it is even more problematic because of the noise of shunting. There are a couple of elements of the bill that I wish to raise. I commend the minister for there being an obligation on sellers of land, real estate agents and others to advise prospective purchasers of the operation of this legislation. This applies to the Milton Brewery site. I think it is important where there are these types of operations that there is a caveat on the freehold land register to ensure that any person who proposes to purchase near this operation in the future is made aware that the Milton Brewery operation has a right to operate within its licence conditions. It is also important for prospective landowners to understand that if they buy into that area some of their normal appeal rights or objection rights will be impacted upon. I believe, as other speakers have said, that the principles espoused in this piece of legislation could well be applied to other areas, particularly significant operations which are not new but on which urban and other development is encroaching. Caveats could be placed on properties so that if a person is buying into an area there is a clear notation that says, ‘Be aware that this is a pre-existing land use and the operators of that land use will be able to operate in the future within their licence provisions.’ At the moment in my electorate, one of the biggest growth areas is the port. One of the major impacts from the port is not noise but light. With the Wiggins Island development, consideration needs to be given to light shrouding to ensure the whole community of Gladstone is not affected by excessive light that spills from the major lighting facility at the port of Gladstone. There are ways of mitigating the 10 Feb 2009 Planning (Urban Encroachment—Milton Brewery) Bill 45 impact of industry in proximity to urban developments that are reasonably cost effective and will improve the quality of life and amenity for residents of the area and that can be implemented at the time of construction or retrofitted quite easily. I support this piece of legislation. As other speakers have said, I believe the principles espoused in this legislation should be looked at with regard to pre-existing land uses, particularly those that are significant employers or those that have been operating in an area for a significant period of time. The protection that is offered in this legislation, given that it is prospective and not retrospective in any way, is helpful to both existing industry and prospective new residents. I support the bill. Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (4.02 pm): As we all know, Queensland is experiencing the impacts of significant population growth. Land use planning and development can offer a framework and mechanism to better manage that growth for the benefit of the state. Growth is particularly significant in Queensland’s south-east. With this growth there is a need to maintain a balance between the effective management of the increasing population and the provision of clarity and certainty to existing industry. This bill is an important measure in providing clarity and certainty in the specific area of increasing development and intensification. As we all know, Milton is an identified transit oriented development. As such, it presents significant opportunities for sustainable, attractive urban redevelopment because under the draft South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031 infill and redevelopment in existing urban areas is encouraged as efficient land use planning to manage the growth being experienced by our region. As a result of this growth, situations arise where increased residential development may encroach on the ongoing lawful operation of existing well-established industries. In this environment it is essential to manage growth pressures while maintaining the economy to which industry is a significant contributor. The introduction of the planning bill 2008 demonstrates that the Queensland government is committed to maintaining a strong economy and at the same time creating an enabling environment for future urban development. This bill achieves a balance between the interests of the community and those of an existing well-established industry—in this case, the iconic Milton Brewery—by providing targeted protection to a registered operator from potential litigation from nuisance complaints that may result from new encroaching development and intensification in the area. I am advised that the common law rights of existing residents will not be impacted by this legislation as the brewery’s protection is restricted to its current use of land and as such will not extend to any future intensification of activity on this particular site. The bill will provide clarity and certainty for an existing industry in an environment of increasing development intensification and it will therefore create an enabling environment for future development within the Milton area. In introducing this bill the Queensland government is taking a proactive approach and has developed a unique response to facilitate solutions to a complex problem. This bill enables a continuation of commercial activities and the management of urban growth in a clearly defined environment. This legislation provides clarity and certainty for industry and the community in a time of increasing development and significant urban growth. I commend this bill to the House. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (4.04 pm): I rise to speak to the Planning (Urban Encroachment— Milton Brewery) Bill 2008. I support this bill wholeheartedly because of what it should do for many other industries and businesses across Queensland in the future. This bill particularly pertains to the Lion Nathan brewery at Milton. Milton has been identified as a priority growth area. This creates an atmosphere for confrontation between the existing brewery and future residents. It could be the smell, the noise or the traffic that creates issues. There are a lot of people around here who would love the smell of hops, I am sure. The lighting of displays can also be pretty intrusive. I must say, I would be very disappointed if Mr Fourex disappeared from the skyline. I do not know why, but I like to see him. He is a very likeable character. I know exactly where I am when I see him. He helps me navigate that area. He is an asset to people from the country who are visiting that area. I particularly support the sections of the bill that place an obligation on developers to have a notation on the freehold land register and an obligation on sellers and agents to advise potential buyers of the legislation. One thing I notice in the country when it comes to airports, abattoirs and farms is that there is always contention. Recently a developer wanted to put roughly 78 residences on a couple of properties smack bang in the middle of a farming district. Although the developer said that people would not complain because those on the half-acre blocks would be farmers, too, that was not the case. Farmers get up at dawn, spray their crops with aeroplanes—as my husband does—and plough, which creates dust. At times the land is a very noisy place to be. People think the country is quite idyllic. It was mentioned in another debate that in the city people complain about pubs on Friday and Saturday nights. That made me smile. I have always believed in the right of pre-existence. If a person moves in next to a pub then logic tells them to expect noise. Whatever we live next to will give us some noise. If people live next to a freeway or a railway corridor they can expect noise. I support this bill because it enforces the right of Lion Nathan brewery to continue to operate, albeit with conditions applied. I would hope that the conditions do not change over time making it too onerous to operate in the future. 46 Planning (Urban Encroachment—Milton Brewery) Bill 10 Feb 2009

I have often discussed in this place the right of pre-existence. At times it has not been accepted by other members of this House as readily as this bill has been today. Mostly we get comments that we cannot stop progress. I have to admit that that is always a consideration. With regard to mining and power generation in the South Burnett, I have been faced with a difficult situation. I have a strong belief in the right to pre-existence. I was torn between a loss of farming and grazing land on the one hand and the loss of 400 jobs in the local area on the other hand. There was also the subsequent impact of the loss of those jobs on the businesses in the towns of the South Burnett. It was and still is a very difficult and uncomfortable position to be in. I hope this legislation will stand existing businesses and industries in rural areas in good stead in the future. This legislation and the right to pre-existence must also apply to individuals who are asked to give up their land for roads and other infrastructure. Planning for the Kilcoy bypass is currently underway and hopefully it will be started this year, but the only couple being asked to give up their house are an elderly couple who are free of any debt. However, Main Roads is quite prepared to put them back into debt and I find that absolutely appalling. There is one house that has to go in the whole Kilcoy bypass and it is owned by an elderly couple who will probably be forced into debt to get what they have now somewhere else, and I find that very sad. As I said, I support this bill wholeheartedly and I hope that it applies equally throughout the state. Sellers are now required to inform potential buyers that they will have to expect noise and possibly lights coming through their windows at certain times of the night which they might find uncomfortable but will simply have to cope with. However, I do have a concern that these residential areas that are close to noisy industrial areas might end up being inhabited by people on lesser incomes who cannot afford to move to more expensive areas and that that could become an issue for them. In saying that, overall I support the bill and commend it to the House. Ms GRACE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (4.11 pm): I rise to support the bill. As the member for Brisbane Central, which is a very dynamic part of Queensland in the inner city of Brisbane, I am only too well aware of urban encroachment on many areas of the inner city and I want to ensure that prospective owners know about the impact of this bill. Like the member for Nanango, I, too, as a child remember very fondly the XXXX sign on the many trips that my family made to Mount Coot-tha on those hot summer nights. It used to be a beacon for us as children and I still hold it fondly in my memory. The bill only affects certain types of new developments that will intensify development in the area surrounding the Milton Brewery. This is known in the bill as the ‘affected area’ and is clearly shown in a map attached to the bill—the Milton Railway Station precinct plan. This is based on the map contained in the current draft of the Brisbane City Council’s Milton Railway Station precinct plan. A number of measures have been included in the legislation to ensure that prospective purchasers and owners are aware of the impact of the bill. The bill includes provisions which place obligations on developers or sellers of relevant lots to provide certain notifications, including a notation on the relevant land register and advice to prospective purchasers of the operation of the legislation. Firstly, there is a requirement that a relevant developer must give written notice to the Registrar of Titles asking the registrar to record the development of the relevant land register. This notation is called an affected area notation. Under the bill, an affected area notation is a record which states that the legislation applies to the premises or the lot which is the subject of the application. This notation means that any prospective purchaser of a relevant property or lot will be notified of the legislation when they do the standard title searches on the property. The developer must provide the notice to the Registrar of Titles within 20 business days of making the relevant development application. The consequences of failing to comply with this obligation is serious and may result in a financial penalty of up to 200 penalty units or $15,000. In addition to this clear notation on the title, the bill also provides for certain notifications where a seller of a property or lot in a relevant development wishes to sell the property. In these cases, before entering into any contract to sell the property, the seller must give the prospective buyer an affected area notice. Under the bill, this is a written notice which provides that the legislation applies to the premises or lot which is the subject of the application. The notice must also state the restrictions that apply in relation to legal proceedings under the legislation and note the requirement that the Registrar of Titles must keep a record of an affected area notice which will cause a search of the appropriate register to show the notation of the lot. This obligation will apply to whoever offers the property for sale, including an agent for the developer or any subsequent owner/seller of the property. It is recognised that development applications may be made but they not reach fruition but the registrar has already notated the title. If this occurs—that is, if a relevant development application is refused, removed or has lapsed before it has been decided—then the developer may ask by a written notice that the Register of Titles remove the record. The developer will not incur any costs for the removal of the record provided the Registrar of Titles is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the application has been refused or has lapsed or has been withdrawn before it was decided. The bill also specifies additional consequences if a developer or seller fails to comply with the obligation to give the prospective buyer an affected area notice and an affected area notation is not shown on the appropriate register and a contract for sale of the property has been entered into, and this of course protects the purchaser. If the obligation has not been complied with, the bill provides a prospective buyer the right to terminate the contract by giving written notice to the developer before the 10 Feb 2009 Planning (Urban Encroachment—Milton Brewery) Bill 47 contract is completed. The developer must refund any deposit made by the buyer within 14 days of ending the contract. The bill also addresses the situation where a relevant development application has been approved prior to commencement of the legislation and the property is offered for sale to a prospective buyer. If the seller does not notify the prospective buyer in writing of the restrictions applicable under the legislation, then the prospective buyer has the right to end the contract before it is completed. In addition, if a deposit has been paid, the prospective buyer is to receive a full refund. If the seller does not refund the deposit within 14 days, a maximum penalty of $15,000 applies. Failure to comply with this requirement is an offence and attracts a maximum penalty currently of $15,000. Importantly, the provisions do not preclude the application of common law remedies. This means that if a developer fails to comply with any obligation under this bill the developer will also run the risk of a claim for damages at civil law by a subsequent seller or purchaser who has suffered loss as a result. These are important provisions to ensure purchasers are aware of their rights when they enter into a contract. The consequences of a failure to comply conveys the serious nature of the obligations and will ensure developers take their responsibilities under the legislation seriously. Further, in the interests of openness and transparency, the bill also places an obligation on the registered operator for Milton Brewery to make the conditions and licence for the brewery publicly available by publishing the registration certificate and details relevant to it on the operator’s web site. This ensures that any person who may be affected by the provisions of this bill can read the licence conditions and thereby determine the scope of activities within which the brewery can lawfully operate. If the operator fails to comply with this requirement, this will not affect the application of the provision which restricts a person from commencing a suit for nuisance criminal or civil proceedings against the brewery when it is complying with the brewery registration certificate. The obligations on the brewery operator and on developers or sellers of property in the bill’s very specific area of operation around Milton Brewery are a key component in ensuring the legislation operates fairly and effectively and that the rights of the buyers are sufficiently protected. For this reason, I commend the bill to the House. Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (4.18 pm): I also rise this afternoon to support the Planning (Urban Encroachment—Milton Brewery) Bill 2008. I do not think many Queenslanders would disagree that the XXXX Brewery at Milton is indeed a Queensland icon. The brewery was completed in 1878 and the first brew was made to the same formula as the beer brewed by Castlemaine Brewery in Victoria. The first trademark for the famous four Xs was applied for in the late 1890s. However, Milton as an area is now subject to increasing development where significantly higher density building proposals either approved or in the development pipeline have the potential to impact on existing brewery operations. The Brisbane City Council has also recently approved a mixed-use development over the Milton railway, which would include a 30-storey residential high-rise building. That is why this bill is important— to provide some degree of immunity to the Milton Brewery from complaints from people who have moved into this new high-density residential area. The Queensland government wants to protect the Milton Brewery from nuisance complaints about air, noise and light when new, high-density developments are built as long as the brewery is operating within its licence conditions. The Queensland government also wants to support local government in its approval of development around the precinct. However, incoming and future residents need to know that vexatious claims and efforts to displace this much-loved Queensland icon will not be given any support. The Milton Brewery is part of our heritage. It is a Queensland icon and it needs to be protected from claims by people who are attracted to the lifestyle of the area but do not fully understand the implications of living across the road from a brewery until they perhaps move in. As the Deputy Premier has already stated, it should be quite obvious to anyone who buys next to a brewery that it will operate as a brewery. We have seen a very similar pattern develop around other areas of Brisbane, particularly in Fortitude Valley. In the past, the Brisbane City Council has had to take action when people bought units in the Fortitude Valley area and then complained about the very nature of the Valley itself and the night- life. Noise associated with entertainment venues is one of the key issues of dispute between residents, venues and other businesses in areas such as the Valley. The Brisbane City Council entered into a two- year consultation period which finally led to the release of the Valley Music Harmony Plan. That plan enabled special noise precincts in and around the Valley to be set up with a permit system for licensees established with specific decibel limits for noise. The plan was a way in which noise can be managed and the Valley could protect its reputation as an entertainment precinct in the face of complaints. Likewise, this bill is simply about protecting the brewery and its current operations. Whilst the Queensland government supports planning to encourage developments around Milton Railway Station, it is also committed to the important process of ensuring that the rights of a 130-year-old icon are not threatened. Present, incoming and future residents enjoying the benefits of this very lovely style of living can be assured that, under this bill, the Milton Brewery’s obligations to comply strictly with its EPA licence are not being compromised. The bill will help the brewery keep on doing its job of providing a wonderful amber fluid to Queensland and beyond. It will also allow it to continue to employ Queenslanders for this very important operation. The bill will take away the potential threat of claim against the brewery by giving it some level 48 Planning (Urban Encroachment—Milton Brewery) Bill 10 Feb 2009 of immunity so that it will not be forced to close down or, worse still, move out of the area. The bill will strike a balance between ensuring that our cultural and historical icons stay in place and satisfying the urgent need for residential accommodation within the inner-city area. This legislation will not affect residents who are already coexisting with the brewery and it does not in any way affect the brewery’s existing legal requirements. I thank the minister for this important bill. I commend this bill to the House. Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) (4.23 pm), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. Milton is an identified transit oriented development area. Under the South East Queensland Regional Plan, infill and redevelopment of existing urban areas is encouraged as efficient land use planning to manage the significant population growth that is being experienced by the region. The purpose of the bill is to protect the existing use of the Milton Brewery site from encroaching or intensifying development. The bill operates by identifying the categories of development that will be an intensification of the area—that is, material change of use applications and subdivisions of lots relevant to development other than homes, townhouses and non-habitable dwellings, offering statutory protection to the brewery from suit for nuisance where the brewery is operating within its licence conditions. Also, it acknowledges specifically protection for the brewery with respect to light emissions, which are not currently canvassed in its licence. This will mean protection for the iconic Mr Fourex and XXXX signs. The Milton Railway Station precinct is the area in which this bill will apply, alerting owners, purchasers and residents of relevant development by placing an obligation on the developer to have a notation on the appropriate register that places an obligation on sellers to advise prospective purchasers of the operation of the legislation and removing the brewery’s protection if it increases its approved emission levels as a result of the intensification of its own operations on the site. The government recognises that the issues that have been raised in relation to the Milton Brewery will be experienced by other industries and operations as population density increases and development encroaches on existing industries. This bill is the first of a two-phase and comprehensive approach to address the broader issue of encroachment. I will say a little bit more about that in a second. The member for Callide spoke about this issue being a problem. I interjected on him by saying that it has been a problem for hundreds of years. The reason this issue has been a problem for hundreds of years and that it is not able to be resolved easily is that over those hundreds of years communities and towns have changed. Indeed that is not always a negative thing. Often, it is very desirable that that happens. But these days we have become a lot better at understanding the need of particular uses. In the old days, people did not look at or think about their legal rights very much. All they seemed to care about was, ‘I’m here. If I make a nuisance to someone next door, bad luck for them’, and vice versa. Indeed, the law of nuisance did not really protect average people anyway, because they did not have the wherewithal to bring legal proceedings. So it was really a most unsatisfactory way of addressing issues. Increasingly, with modern town planning schemes, we make sure that there is an appropriate separation between conflicting uses. But that is not the be-all and end-all. The traditional Queensland main street development consisted of shops with dwellings above them. So in many instances mixed use is what happens in other parts of the world and, indeed, it has been satisfactory in Queensland’s past. How does the state address these issues of cause of conflict? One of the ways we have been doing that is through the setting up of state development areas. A state development area—such as the Gladstone, Bowen or Bromelton state development areas—is about saying, ‘This is the area that we want to make sure is set aside for a particular industry.’ What we do now, which governments in the old days did not do, is set aside not just an area that is sufficient for the industrial development but also buffer zones. The member for Gladstone would be aware of the Curtis Island extension to the Gladstone state development area, where 75 per cent of the area that we have acquired is actually buffer zone. Only 25 per cent of it will potentially be used for development. So we have protected people from that encroachment issue, and increasingly we will do that. I am very sympathetic to the issues of the residents of the people of Narangba. People say, ‘Councils allowed encroachment’—and they did, and they should not have done that. But industrial estates should also have a sufficient area of buffer zone. Who should be responsible for the buffer zone? Surely not the people surrounding it. It should be the responsibility of proponents of the development in the first place. That is why, for example, our state planning policy for extractive industries says, ‘We want to make sure that if you are planning a quarry you have a sufficient area around the quarry and we will look at heavy haul routes and the like to physically protect the interests not only of the quarry, which is legitimate, but also of the people who live around it.’ So it is very much a two-way street. The member for Callide mentioned farming enterprises. He wanted us, just at a flick of a wand, to sort out the issues of encroachment on farming. The solution is not as simple as that. Traditionally, we have not told farmers what they can and cannot grow. Although this is not a direct town planning issue, in north Queensland there has been the issue of the impact between managed forestry investment 10 Feb 2009 Planning (Urban Encroachment—Milton Brewery) Bill 49 schemes and sugarcane farming. In the past we have not told farmers, ‘You must grow a particular crop.’ I have spoken at length to the member for Hinchinbrook about this matter, because there is not a simple solution. What do you do? Do you all of a sudden say to farmers, ‘Okay, we will freeze in time your ability to grow what you grow there at the moment, but we will not let you change it’? The people who are changing their crops to grow something else are also farming. It is not a simple issue in rural areas. I will tell members, though—and we received a bit of flak from this in terms of the Regional Plan—we are not going to let people subdivide their farms willy-nilly. After a farmer subdivides a block off their farm—and often the farmer says, ‘I want to do that for my kids’—the kids sell it and then all of a sudden they have someone sitting on the corner of their farm on a subdivided block complaining about the spraying of pesticide. It is not a simple issue. People need to be very consistent about what they want to do. The member for Indooroopilly was worried about the precedents that this sets and said that he did not really like some of them. I do not know whether that means the Greens oppose the Sunday Mail building protections in the Valley. I would have thought the Greens would be supportive of the live music venue that the Valley is. The protections the then Brisbane City Council put in place to ensure live music venues can continue in the Valley are very important. There is nothing wrong or unusual about this at all. One of the other members noted the buildings at the Roma Street Parkland. I can remember as transport minister getting a couple of letters from people saying—shock, horror!—that they had suddenly discovered there is a railway line at Roma Street. Frankly, I do not have a lot of sympathy for that. The member for Moggill made a good point on that issue. He said that modern building design should ensure appropriate noise proofing. That can also be good in environmental terms. What stops noise radiating, such as insulation, can have a good environmental outcome as well. The member for Moggill was quite accurate on that point. In relation to the Townsville Ocean Terminal, we will be bringing in appropriate noise and other contractual measures to ensure the right of continued operation of that port persists. Most members in the debate spoke about the need to protect existing uses. That is what this bill is about. Like everything, it is not absolute. There cannot be an absolute right to do whatever one likes in an existing sense and forget that we live in a modern society with modern norms and expectations on people. This does not take away that expectation or, indeed, the ability of the EPA to downwardly adjust the licence conditions. For example, the Milton Brewery in recent years changed its boilers from coal operation to gas-fired operation. That has resulted in a significant reduction in particulate emissions from the brewery which has been reflected in changes to its licence conditions. That is totally appropriate and is, in fact, a benefit to the community. The licence contains not only specific measures; there is also a provision that states— In carrying out the environmentally relevant activities, you must take all reasonable and practicable measures to prevent and/or to minimise the likelihood of environmental harm being caused. Any environmentally relevant activity, that, if carried out incompetently, or negligently, may cause environmental harm, in a manner that could have been prevented, shall be carried out in a proper manner in accordance with the conditions of this authority. NOTE: This authority authorises the environmentally relevant activity. It does not authorise environmental harm unless a condition contained within this authority explicitly authorises that harm. Where there is no condition or the authority is silent on a matter, the lack of a condition or silence shall not be construed as authorising harm. It has that catch-up provision as well. I table that document. Tabled paper: Copy of Environmental Protection Agency Permit number IPDE00918308, dated 12 May 2008, relating to property at 185 Milton Road, Milton [4999]. The shadow minister asked about consultation. A letter went out to residents. We had a public meeting on 24 November 2008 in that regard. I table that letter. Tabled paper: Letter, dated 14 November 2008, from the Deputy Director-General, Planning Group, Department of Infrastructure and Planning addressed to ‘the resident’ relating to development in Milton [5000]. People have said that we have to protect the interests of existing uses. That is not an absolute. If we say that existing uses are set in concrete and can never change, we will never have an area that changes from an old-style industrial area. There would still be woolsheds at New Farm with wool in them. There would not be people living there in a desirable situation. The Docklands area of London would still have docks or, indeed, there would be nothing there—empty docks—rather than people living in them. We want to encourage changes in an appropriate sense. It is not about stopping change that is desirable in a town planning sense. It is not about stopping communities from evolving. They should. As the Treasurer said, maybe one day the Milton Brewery will not be there. As this process of change occurs we need to protect appropriately the existing rights and uses of those who are there. The bill protects not only the existing rights of the brewery but also the existing rights of everyone else who lives there at the moment or indeed people who buy from them in circumstances other than an intensification. I was very interested to hear the member for Callide talk about macadamia spraying. It is a pity both he and the member for Noosa are not present because the member for Noosa clearly has a disagreement with the member for Callide on macadamia spraying. The member for Noosa has concluded that macadamia spraying in his community has caused two-headed fish. Whether that has or has not been the case will be determined as a result of scientific investigation. That is something we might explore a little more in terms of the faction-ridden Liberal National Party. 50 Planning (Urban Encroachment—Milton Brewery) Bill 10 Feb 2009

Mr Horan interjected. Mr LUCAS: Sorry? Mr Horan: I was wondering whether you did it or not. Mr LUCAS: I have sprayed a few bindi-eye in my time. The member for Moggill, beside the issue of building design, raised the issue of the Kenmore bypass. He is right about that. The Kenmore bypass is marked on a map very clearly so that people understand there is a planned bypass through there. No-one should make any mistake about that. The member for Moggill is quite consistent on that. The member for Indooroopilly should understand that these things actually have to be built to protect communities and to allow for growth and allow for some sort of livability in that Kenmore area. Are the shops in Kenmore or Moggill? Dr Flegg: Kenmore. Mr LUCAS: They are marked clearly on the map. I think people have a fair enough complaint when something is suddenly foisted upon them without proper planning, but if it is marked there for years it is really difficult to see how someone can then complain about the situation. I thank honourable members on both sides of the House for their support. I table the amendments and explanatory notes to the amendments and I commend the bill to the House. Tabled paper: Deputy Premier’s amendments to be moved during consideration in detail of the Planning (Urban Encroachment— Milton Brewery) Bill and explanatory notes to those amendments [5001]. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time.

Consideration in Detail Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clause 2 (Commencement)— Mr LUCAS (4.37 pm): I move the following amendment— 1 Clause 2 (Commencement) Page 4, line 7, ‘, other than parts 7 and 8,’— omit. This is a minor amendment that merely corrects a typographical error following removal of parts 7 and 8 from the previous bill. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 3 to 7, as read, agreed to. Clause 8 (Restrictions on particular legal proceedings)— Mr LUCAS (4.37 pm): I move the following amendment— 2 Clause 8 (Restrictions on particular legal proceedings) Page 7, lines 1 to 3— omit, insert— ‘(b) the relevant act was, or was caused by, the emission of aerosols, fumes, light, noise, odour, particles or smoke.’. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the intention of the bill and to limit the application of the indemnity provided by clause 8 to interference with environmental values stemming from the emissions of aerosol, fumes, light, noise, odour, particles or smoke. That is essentially within the definition of environmental nuisance under section 15 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994. The amendment will address a concern that the previous use of the word ‘contaminant’ may have been indeed too broad. It really relates to those issues in relation to the licence conditions. Amendment agreed to. Clause 8, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 9 to 16, as read, agreed to. Schedules 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. 10 Feb 2009 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 51

Third Reading Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) (4.40 pm): I move— That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Question put—That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a third time.

Long Title Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning) (4.40 pm): I move— That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

CRIMINAL PROCEEDS CONFISCATION AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 2 December 2008 (see p. 3965), on motion of Mr Shine— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—LNP) (4.40 pm): The Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill covers four acts, but the bulk of the bill amends the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002. The LNP will support this bill as we have a very strong determination to do whatever can be done to cut back on crime in this state, particularly in the area of drugs which I understand much of this legislation will effect. If anything can be done in this state to reduce the amount of drug peddling, to protect our young people, to reduce the amount of crime that is caused as a result of drugs and to provide assistance to our police officers in the sterling job they do in endeavouring to address this scourge on our society, the LNP will support it. At the outset I note the work of the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee, which made a number of recommendations that the bill adopts. I also record my thanks for the courtesies and assistance provided by the staff of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General in their briefing, and also to the Parliamentary Library in preparing a brief much of which I will use in my contribution because it gives an outstanding summary of the bill and its background. The bill also amends the Fair Trading Act, the Security Providers Act and the Trusts Act. Those are not as large in content as the main act and I will deal with them later on. Recently the Australian Institute of Criminology stated that in Australia the assets confiscation regime has two aims: the first is to remove funds generated by criminal activities, thereby depriving criminals of their ill-gotten gains and reducing the motivation to offend; the second aim of the scheme is to remove access to assets generated from criminal activities in order to limit the capital available to perpetrators of future crimes. Confiscation of the proceeds of crime legislation was first introduced in Australia in 1977 when the Commonwealth Customs Act 2001 was amended to enable the seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of drug related crimes and of the drugs themselves. In 1983 the Australian police ministers recommended that all Australian jurisdictions develop laws to address the accumulation of criminal assets. With the passage of time, confiscation laws have broadened beyond drug related offences to cover other crimes such as terrorism, murder, corruption and money laundering. Legislation provides two ways of recovering the proceeds of crime. The first is via a conviction based regime, so that assets associated with the crime can be recovered after someone is convicted. This conviction based system has operated in Australian states and territories for many years. The second method of legislative confiscation is via a civil based regime. Civil recovery laws enable the court to order the confiscation of assets on the basis of their suspected criminal origin, without requiring that someone is first convicted. The burden of proof for civil confiscation—that is, more probable than not—is lower than that required by the conviction based scheme, which is proof beyond reasonable doubt. In essence, for conviction based confiscation proceedings there has to be a direct connection between the property and the offences, but for civil based proceedings it is enough that there is a suspicion that a person has committed an offence for which the penalty is five or more years imprisonment—for instance, a charge of supplying a dangerous drug. 52 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 10 Feb 2009

Apart from Tasmania, each Australian jurisdiction has legislation enabling both civil based and criminal based confiscation of proceeds of crime. Most legislation of this type has three basic elements: restraining orders to prevent the dissipation or disposal of assets before there is a determination by a court, confiscation orders that forfeit property to the state and orders that require the repayment of a monetary sum equal to the benefit received from the offence. The overview of the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 introduced a new civil based confiscation system into Queensland to operate alongside the pre-existing but strengthened conviction based regime. Aspects of the act drew upon the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission’s March 2002 report titled Confiscation That Counts: A Review of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987. They were also modelled on the New South Wales Criminal Assets Recovery Act. The 2002 act had a civil based scheme that enabled the state to seek restraining orders and forfeiture orders in relation to property derived from illegal activity even if the person engaged in the activity had not been convicted, or in relation to property derived from a serious crime related activity even though the person engaged in the activity had not been identified. Restraining orders that freeze assets and property to ensure that they are not dissipated before the court determines an application for a confiscation order were a part of the act. They covered property of the person who was suspected of engaging in a serious crime related activity, they covered the property of another person and they covered the property itself if the court is satisfied that the officer reasonably suspected it was serious crime derived property, even if the person suspected of having engaged in the serious crime related activity cannot be identified. Under a conviction based scheme, the state could recover a person’s property, any benefits derived from and anything used in the commission of a confiscation offence after the charging or conviction of a person. As a preliminary measure, the state could apply for a restraining order against the property of a person who is about to be or has been charged with a confiscation offence or a person who has been convicted of a confiscation offence, another person in either of the two situations or if the confiscation offence is a serious drug offence or if the confiscation offence is not a serious drug offence, in which case the police officer’s affidavit must state the reason for suspecting that the property is tainted or the reason for suspecting that the property is under the prescribed respondent’s effective control and that the respondent has derived a benefit from the commission of an offence. The act also dealt with automatic forfeiture and forfeiture of literary proceeds. Provision was made for automatic forfeiture of property in certain instances involving serious offences and for the forfeiture of literary proceeds—that is, proceeds derived from the commercial exploitation of a person’s criminal activity. The 2002 act placed obligations on financial institutions requiring them to assist in the detection and recovery of criminal proceeds. The obligations imposed on financial institutions are sought to be extended by the new bill. I will come to that later on. The act also dealt with money laundering. That offence is dealt with through amendments contained in this bill, which introduce a new offence titled ‘recklessly engaging in money laundering’. The administration of the criminal proceeds confiscation is worthwhile looking at. The Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions administers the conviction based regime while the CMC administers the civil based regime. In the library brief it says— ... since January 2003 (when the civil-based regime commenced) to 30 June 2008, the CMC has (with the cooperation of the DPP, the Queensland Police Service and other law enforcement agencies operating within Queensland) restrained $66.95 million in assets and $13.3m in assets has been forfeited to the State. The CMC’s Annual Report 2007-2008 ... shows that during the 2007- 2008 financial year, the CMC restrained $18.56m in assets and confiscated around $4.67m from crime figures in Queensland......

Under the conviction-based scheme, $5.43m has been forfeited since 2003, of which $1.27m was recovered in the 2007-2008 financial year. The DPP’s latest Annual Report 2006-2007 ... reveals that, during 2006-2007, over $1.65m was collected by the State under Ch 3 as a result of pecuniary penalty orders and forfeiture orders. This bill that we are looking at today comes about to a large extent because of the review that had to be undertaken by the department after a number of years under the original act back in 2002. One of the major contributors to this review has been the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee review, and that has been taken into account. I understand that of the recommendations that were made by the PCMC all bar two are included in this particular report. That report done by the PCMC was important, report No. 1. Mr Shine: 71. Mr HORAN: Sorry, it was report No. 71. The PCMC reported in its three-yearly review that the suggested amendments should address some implementation issues that had been encountered and would enhance the operational effectiveness of the legislation. The changes sought by the CMC and endorsed by the PCMC culminated in the PCMC report No. 71, which I just mentioned. The report made the following recommendations. Recommendation 4 recommends the introduction of express provisions into the act to ensure that it applies to property held outside Queensland, including property held offshore. Under the current act, the court cannot order a person to return property that is held outside Queensland. 10 Feb 2009 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 53

Recommendation 5 recommends a clarification of existing provisions to distinguish between administrative orders and investigative orders, with notice required for seeking administrative orders and with the investigative orders to be obtained only by the state and available on an ex parte basis in certain circumstances. The report further recommends: the insertion of provisions into the act to clarify the use that can be made of information and evidence obtained during a court ordered examination of a person about his or her property; an amendment to ensure that the reversal of the onus of proof relating to proceeds assessment applications is consistent with the onus in respect of forfeiture; amendments to provide that the making of a pecuniary penalty order does not prevent the court from later making a proceeds assessment order based on the same serious crime related activity, taking into account the amount of any such pecuniary penalty; an amendment to allow the court to make a repatriation order or a property substitution order in respect of forfeitable property. This would render ineffective attempts to divest forfeitable property before the application for a restraining order is made because other property of the respondent could be made subject to forfeiture instead. There is also a provision for penalties in the act to attach to non-disclosure of assets under an examination order or, alternatively, a provision for forfeiture of non-disclosed assets. As I said, with the exception of recommendations 6 and 12, which I have not read out, the recommendations for the most part have been adopted by this new Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill. In September 2008, the government announced that it would strengthen the state’s ability to confiscate the proceeds of crime under the act. It was noted at the time that some $18 million in proceeds of crime had been confiscated since the laws came into effect and that the act was operating well. However, a departmental review of the act and ensuing consultation with key stakeholders had identified loopholes that needed closing. Proposed amendments to the act include, in particular, the power to seize a criminal’s interstate or overseas property; the power to substitute alternative possessions for seizure when the tainted property has already been disposed of; and a new offence of reckless money laundering aimed at people who recklessly handle stolen goods or cash, with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment attached. So now we come to the bill that is before us. As I have said, a key component of this bill is the confiscation of criminal proceeds. In dealing with proceeds outside of Queensland, in its submission to the PCMC’s three-year review of the CMC, the CMC said that the current failure of the legislation to apply to property held outside Queensland was a major inadequacy in the law and provided a simple way of avoiding its application. The PCMC report No. 71 noted that there is uncertainty about whether the act applies to property located outside Queensland and the act has no extraterritorial reach to such property. The PCMC recommended that the act be amended to especially provide that it applies to property held outside of Queensland, including property held offshore. So this bill seeks to amend the act to enable the confiscation of assets held outside Queensland, including outside Australia. Changes include a proposed new section 5A which confirms that the act has extraterritorial operation and a proposed new administration order that the court can make under sections 38 and 130 to require a person whose property is restrained to do anything necessary or convenient to bring it within the state. In relation to the external serious crime related activity in this bill, it is proposed to amend definitions to expand the concept of a ‘serious crime related activity’ to include an external serious crime related activity, to cover a serious crime related activity arising out of an offence under the laws of other jurisdictions, including jurisdictions outside Australia, that would be a serious criminal offence if they were committed in Queensland, and also to extend the meaning of a ‘serious criminal offence’ to include an offence under the laws of other jurisdictions, including outside Australia, that would be a serious criminal offence if committed in Queensland. This is obviously being done to ensure that the net to deter these criminals from making profits out of crime is extended so that it is not just related to what they may be doing in this state but also related to what they may be doing interstate and in other jurisdictions. The bill also seeks to insert an additional subsection so that an application for a restraining order under the civil based scheme that relates to property derived from an external serious crime related activity may be made only if the person whose property it is lives in Queensland or the property is situated in Queensland. It also includes another subsection to provide that an affidavit supporting an application for a restraining order relating to such property must state that the authorised CMC officer or police officer has made due inquiry and is satisfied that no action has been taken under a law of the Commonwealth or any other place outside Queensland or outside Australia against that property as a result of the external serious crime related activity. The bill also introduces a new section to provide that a forfeiture order application relating to property derived from external serious crime related activity may be made only if the prescribed respondent lives in Queensland or the property is situated in Queensland. The court cannot make the order unless it is satisfied that no action has been taken under a law of another jurisdiction, including outside Australia, against the prescribed respondent’s property that is the subject of the application. It also inserts a section to make a similar provision regarding proceeds assessment orders relating to external serious crime related activity. 54 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 10 Feb 2009

I turn now to administration and investigation orders. In addition to the substantive orders the court can make to restrain or forfeit property under both the civil based and conviction based regimes of the act, it can also make various ancillary orders. The PCMC report observed that currently ancillary orders are a mix of administrative orders and information-gathering powers. In the CMC’s submission to the PCMC review, it was suggested that the current ancillary order provisions of the act be separated to distinguish quite clearly between administrative and investigative orders so that investigative orders can be sought only by the state and on an ex parte basis so as not to hamper the investigative process by giving notice to the respondent. The following amendments are proposed by the bill to give effect to the distinction between these two orders—administrative and investigative orders—in both civil based and conviction based systems. There is a replacement of section 38 and a new section 130 to provide what administration orders the Supreme Court may make. These are an order varying the property being restrained; an order imposing additional conditions on the restraining order or varying a condition on it; an order about the performance of an undertaking re costs or damages; where relevant, an order about the Public Trustee’s role; an order for payment of legal expenses to Legal Aid from the restrained property; and a new proposed order to require a person whose property is restrained to do anything necessary or convenient to bring it within the state. This bill proposes a maximum penalty for contravening an administration order of $10,000 or two years imprisonment. There is the insertion of new sections to state what investigation orders a court may make, and these are an examination order, a property particulars order, and an order requiring or authorising a CMC officer or a police officer to seize restrained property. There is an amendment to section 37 and section 129 to ensure that only the state can apply for an investigation order, while under sections 37 and 129 the state, the person whose property is restrained, the Public Trustee and the prescribed respondent will continue to be able to apply for administration orders. When the state applies for an investigation order, in certain situations it will be able to do so without notice ex parte to any person to whom it relates. This bill also deals with the use and dissemination of examination information, particularly for other agencies that may require such information. In its submission to the PCMC’s three-yearly review, the CMC said that provisions about privacy of examinations under examination orders, especially under section 39B, have caused uncertainty about the extent to which the state can disseminate information obtained during an examination to appropriate investigative agencies or make derivative use of the examination evidence. It is also submitted that some doubt surrounds the admissibility of examination transcripts into evidence at trial. Report No. 71 endorsed in recommendation 7 the CMC’s submission that amendments be made to the act to clarify the issue of the use and dissemination of examination information. So that is addressed in this bill. I turn now to penalties for contravention of property particulars orders. The existing act provides that the court may make an investigation order directing specified persons to provide to the CMC for chapter 2 orders or to the DPP for chapter 3 orders a sworn statement of particulars of or dealings with any property in which the persons have an interest within a stated period of time. The PCMC report observed that the act does not currently impose penalties for not fully disclosing all one’s assets and interests in the sworn statement of particulars. A new section 42A inserted for the civil based regime and a new section 134 inserted for the conviction based regime will provide that a person against whom the property particulars order is made must comply with the direction unless the person has a reasonable excuse and must not make a statement that is false or misleading in a material particular. The maximum penalty for contravention will be $10,000 or two years imprisonment. I want to speak about the exclusion of property from a restraining order and forfeiture orders, firstly under the civil based scheme. Pursuant to section 47, a prescribed respondent under a restraining order can apply to the court to exclude particular property from the order. The court may exclude the prescribed respondent’s property if satisfied it is more probable than not that the property is not an illegally acquired property and it is unlikely to be needed to satisfy a proceeds assessment order. An amendment to section 47 will require the prescribed respondent to give written notice of the application and state fully the grounds for making it and the facts relied upon. An amendment to section 49 proposes a similar change in relation to applications by a person other than the prescribed respondent whose property is restrained to exclude that person’s property from the order. With regard to the conviction based scheme, a prescribed respondent can apply to the court to amend a restraining order to exclude particular property where the property is not tainted property, the relevant offence is not a serious criminal offence and a pecuniary penalty order cannot be made against the prescribed respondent. Where another person’s property is restrained, the person can apply, pursuant to section 140 in this instance, for it to be excluded from the order in certain circumstances. A person other than the prescribed person can apply for an innocent interest exclusion order under sections 155 to 159. Under the conviction based scheme, the court can only make an innocent interest order if the court is satisfied that the applicant would have had an interest in the property, that the applicant was not involved in the commission of the relevant confiscation offence and that the applicant acquired the interest in good faith and for sufficient consideration. 10 Feb 2009 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 55

The tainted property substitution orders come under clause 50 of the bill which will introduce a new chapter 3 into the act to allow the court to make declarations over property in which a convicted person has an interest, where the person has used certain other property in connection with an offence but that other property is not available for forfeiture. This means that the offender could lose his or her home if he or she has used rented premises to engage in illegal activities such as the production of drugs or if the offender has since disposed of the illegally acquired property. There is no doubt that what this is doing is making sure that any attempts by people to circumvent some of these confiscation arrangements should not be successful. As pointed out in that example, if they have used rented premises, their own property that they may own and that may not have been used for this illegal activity would be described as tainted property. The PCMC report again endorsed the CMC’s submission that attempts to dispose of forfeitable property would be neutralised if the court had the power to make a property substitution order where illegally acquired property is disposed of before or after the restraining order is made and the proceeds of that disposal cannot be traced. There is a new section 153B, which seeks to provide that a property is not available for forfeiture if the convicted person does not have an interest in the property. It is also intended that a new section 153C will provide that the state may apply for a tainted property substitution declaration but the application must be made in conjunction with a forfeiture order application. Other proposed changes include section 153D, where the court will be able to make a declaration if it is satisfied of those foregoing matters that I mentioned. Proposed new section 153E will enable a court, on the application of the state under section 117, to restrain property that may become subject to a declaration so that the property will be preserved until it is decided whether or not the declaration will be made. Other proposed changes include an amendment to ensure that where the court imposes a condition providing for certain expenses— reasonable living expenses or stated debts—to be paid out of restrained property it can do so only if satisfied that the expenses or debts cannot be met out of non-restrained property and the property from which the expenses or debts are to be paid is not tainted property or available substitute property. There is also a proposed amendment under sections 139 and 140 so that, in relation to an application by the prescribed person or another person for exclusion of property from the restraining order, the court must be satisfied that the property is not tainted property or available substitute property. I want to talk now about the proceeds assessment orders and pecuniary penalty orders. In accordance with recommendation 9 of the PCMC report, this bill seeks to remove the inability of the state under the conviction based scheme to apply for a proceeds assessment order if a pecuniary penalty order has already been made under the civil based regime in relation to the same serious crime activity. I turn to the onus of proof for proceeds assessment orders. In this bill section 83 is proposed to be amended by clause 31 to make it clear that once the court has found that a respondent has been involved in a serious crime related activity within the relevant six-year period the state does not have to prove that any increase in the value of the person’s wealth or his or her amount of expenditure was derived from illegal activity. The court is to treat the increase as proceeds derived from an illegal activity unless satisfied that the reason for the increase is not related to illegal activity. This particular amendment accords with recommendation 8 of report 71 which noted and endorsed the CMC’s submissions that provisions of the act regarding the onus of proof relating to proceeds assessment orders needed amendment to be consistent with the onus in respect of forfeiture. There are obligations in the previous act on financial institutions. They must retain certain documents relating to customer accounts and transactions for up to seven years or an offence is committed. They must also keep a register of original documents that are required to be released under a law. If a financial institution has information about an account or transaction that it has reasonable grounds for believing may be relevant to an investigation or prosecution of a person or to an investigation of a serious crime related activity or another matter under chapter 2 then there are a number of other obligations that they have. Clause 55 of the bill seeks to include a confidentiality obligation in proposed new section 249(6) in relation to the giving of information to a police officer or a CMC officer about accounts or transactions. It is also intended that clause 57 will insert new subsections into the act which enable a police officer of or above the rank of inspector or an authorised CMC officer to give a written notice to a financial institution asking it to advise whether a stated person holds an account with the institution. The new provisions are similar—but apply to a narrower range of information of financial institutions—to those in other jurisdictions such as the Commonwealth Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the South Australian Criminal Assets Confiscation Act and the Western Australian Criminal Property Confiscation Act. One of the big issues in relation to the proceeds of crime is money laundering. Chapter 9 of the act established various offences with penalties attached, one of which is money laundering. Money laundering occurs if a person engages directly or indirectly in a transaction involving tainted property, which can include money, or if the person receives, possesses, disposes of or brings into Queensland 56 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 10 Feb 2009 tainted property or conceals or disguises various aspects of the tainted property such as its source or ownership. At present section 250 also requires that the person must have known or ought to have reasonably known that the property is tainted or is derived from some form of unlawful activity before the offence is committed. This bill that we are debating today under clause 57 seeks to amend section 250. The offence described in the foregoing paragraph will be retained and known as ‘knowingly engaging in money laundering’. A new offence of ‘recklessly engaging in money laundering’ is also introduced and will apply where the buyer has been reckless in his or her consideration about where the property has originated. Under this proposed new section, reckless money laundering will occur where a person recklessly engages directly or indirectly in a transaction involving money or other tainted property or receives, possesses, disposes of or brings into Queensland money or other tainted property or conceals or disguises various aspects of the tainted property such as its source or ownership. The prosecution needs only to show that the person is aware that there is a substantial risk that the property is tainted or derived from some form of criminal activity and, having regard to the circumstances known to the person, it is unjustifiable for the person to take the risk. Whether the risk is unjustifiable would be a question of fact. An example of this situation is a person who buys a cheap television sold out of the boot of a car. The penalty for knowingly engaging in money laundering will be a fine of up to $300,000 or up to 20 years imprisonment. Recklessly engaging in money laundering will result in a fine of up $150,000 or up to 10 years in prison. I now address the issue of consent orders. It is proposed to introduce a new section in this regard through clause 58 of this bill. The CMC’s submission noted that, unlike the Commonwealth Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the Queensland legislation does not have express provisions which enable the court to make a consent forfeiture or proceeds assessment order in the absence of being satisfied that the respondent engaged in serious crime. The intention is to allow the court, under both the civil based and conviction based schemes, to make an order in a proceeding with the consent of the applicant in the proceeding and everyone whom the court has reason to believe has an interest in the property that is subject to the proceeding. Even if a person whom the court has reason to believe has an interest in the property withholds consent or the person’s consent could not be obtained, the court may still make the order if it considers it appropriate to do so. It is also made clear that this consent provision will not apply to an order made on sentence for a criminal offence. The CMC submitted that enabling the court to make consent orders would improve efficiency and overcome the need for settlements under the deeds of agreement. Much of what I have read has come from a very comprehensive and, I believe, well researched library brief. The detail in it shows the detail which officers of the CMC, the DPP or the Queensland Police Service have to go to to seize the proceeds of crime. It highlights the devious ways those who have profited from crime endeavour to plant those profits in property, money or goods throughout this state, other states or overseas. I believe this is good legislation which follows up legislation that was brought in in 2002. The three-yearly review has been undertaken. Submissions have been taken from various groups. It is an enormously complex matter legally, administratively and investigatively to follow through, chase up and endeavour to find these proceeds of crime. When we look at the detail of this legislation and what it is endeavouring to do, all who have been involved should be congratulated because there has obviously been a lot of work done by the department, the CMC, the PCMC, the police department and other stakeholders involved in the review and in putting together this bill and its travels through to this stage. I sincerely hope that this bill will deter crime and particularly deter crime involving drugs, which, as I said in my initial remarks, is the absolute scourge of modern society, the scourge of families and the scourge of young people. It is amazing to think that people can recklessly go about producing and peddling drugs with no regard for the destruction of lives of young people, particularly in terms of their mental health and the wrecking of their life and their potential. Then there is the serious crime that is committed by those people who are fuelled and fired by drugs, particularly those drugs that drive people to commit crime regardless because it gives them an obsession and the confidence to go ahead with it, whether it is a violent crime or other crimes. Drugs bring about an unbelievable amount of work to the day-to-day tasks of our Queensland Police Service. Police officers have often told me that, if it were not for drugs, a large percentage of their everyday activities would simply not be necessary. So it is a major contributor in modern society. We have been able to achieve a lot in this world by providing better education and better opportunities to people in order to give everybody a chance at a fair life. We have been able to manage some of the violent crime by providing modern education and opportunities and through the systems of rehabilitation that are provided in corrective services. However, the big problem for society is drugs. I have heard that up to 70 per cent of the crime that our police have to deal with is a direct or an indirect result of drugs. That is one of the reasons we are giving our wholehearted support to this bill. As I look through the detail of this bill, the thing that has really impressed me is the sheer amount of detail and sophistication that is required in following through on these particular matters in terms of the investigation and the achievement of the objectives. I certainly hope that this bill can bring about a reduction in the amount of drug trafficking and other crimes that occur in our state. 10 Feb 2009 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 57

This bill also deals with other issues, even though they may not be as big as the issue that we have just dealt with. First of all, there are amendments to the Fair Trading Act which are fairly straightforward. The bill removes the capacity for exemptions from prohibited hours of door-to-door trading. It is designed to provide that people do not have people knocking on their front door at all hours of the night and weekends. As I understand, it will restrict door-to-door selling from nine to six from Monday to Friday and nine to five on Saturdays and will not be allowed on Sundays or public holidays. There are also amendments to the Security Providers Act in this bill and, again, that is based on the principle of endeavouring to improve the professionalism and the standards within the security systems of security firms in order to bring about better and more professional conduct. There is concern about this issue amongst people because security providers cover a whole range of events. They are the people who provide security at sports events, entertainment events and even private events such as weddings and functions and so on. They are the people who provide security on buildings and all of the normal security matters that we know about. Society is concerned, particularly when it comes to security at events which young people attend, about the consumption of alcohol and the need to make a venue safe. We need proper security systems that are professionally run and we have to ensure that the people who work for those security firms are well trained. Those people have a very difficult job, because very often they are dealing with people full of bravado and full of alcohol. But they have to show enormous restraint and fairness in how they operate. It is important that, whilst young people may overstep the line, they are treated with professionalism by security officers and that we eliminate any violence that could be demonstrated incorrectly by those professional security service providers. Those are the principles behind these amendments—that is, to continue to work on raising the standards and professionalism of security service providers. The bill attempts to do that by making it mandatory that a firm applying for a security provider licence or individuals applying for a security operator licence must be members of an approved industry organisation. The opposition will not be opposing this measure, but I simply highlight that the main organisation responsible for these standards and ensuring that those standards are met is the government itself. The Office of Fair Trading is the responsible entity for setting the standards to ensure that the licensing is done properly and oversighting that those standards are met. Simply saying that those people have to be a member of an association where the benefits of that association may include—and I am not being cynical in saying this—a magazine, an annual conference and assistance in terms of lobbying for certain things from governments is not enough. That of itself is not going to be the key driving force in ensuring that security firms and the officers within those security firms meet the professional standards. It is the obligation of the government to ensure that that happens. I give this analogy: if we forced every farmer under a mandatory arrangement to be a member of AgForce, that does not of itself mean that they will be a better farmer. Certainly they may be able to benefit from the services provided by AgForce, the additional information provided or the opportunities that might present to meet at conferences to become better informed about their area. But some people are able to do those things of their own accord without being forced under a mandatory rule to be part of an organisation. Under these changes to the legislation, the government will have to determine what will be considered as satisfactory organisations. I understand that this already occurs in New South Wales—that is, it is mandatory—because I know that some operators in southern Queensland that operate either side of the border have become a part of these other organisations. One operator I have spoken to says that an organisation of which he has been a member has been of assistance to him. But I make the point that we cannot walk away from the obligations that are placed upon governments which implement the licensing and which set the standards to ensure that the security systems that we have are of the highest possible standard. The final part of this bill makes amendments to the Trusts Act. Those amendments have been made so that PPFs and ancillary funds can make grants to government linked bodies whether or not there is an express power to do so in their trust instrument. This amendment relates to prescribed private funds that make charitable donations. Those funds are able to make those charitable donations because they are a prescribed trust or fund. Under Commonwealth legislation, those funds receive a tax deduction. There have been difficulties in those funds donating to organisations that are linked to a government because there has not been the recognition of those government linked bodies as a purely charitable organisation. As an example, there are private trusts that would like to or wish to donate to government owned art galleries, museums or possibly even organisations such as the Queensland Institute of Medical Research. Certainly, the explanatory notes refer to the art gallery. This legislation will ensure that the power or the exercising of that power will not invalidate the fund, nor affect its status as a charitable trust. Prescribed private funds and ancillary funds will be able to opt into this arrangement by way of signing a declaration to be retained by the trust. That PPF or ancillary fund will need to apply to the Australian Taxation Office to change their endorsement from a charitable fund to an income tax exemption fund. We certainly hope that, through this amendment, there can be the freeing up of some funds to flow through to many of our government linked institutions which are so important to the furtherance of art and history in our state. 58 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 10 Feb 2009

The LNP is pleased to support this bill. Again, I reiterate our sincere hope that the detail that has gone into the formulation of this bill and the actions that will follow from these changes will enable us to effectively deal with and reduce the scourge of drug related . Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—LNP) (5.32 pm): In rising to speak to the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill, I want to say at the outset that any legislation that deters criminal activity or makes our community safer has to be good legislation. It gives me pleasure to say that our shadow spokesman has stated that the LNP will support this legislation. I think it is important legislation in many ways. Since 2003 when the legislation was introduced into Queensland, the confiscation of assets has shut down or created a decline in the activities of some organised crime gangs. I believe one of the most important issues is to deter those big players who are always at the forefront of creating problems for the police and ultimately for society in general. As I see it, the most important thing to note is that since 2003—as the Attorney-General identified clearly in his second reading speech—some $66.95 million, or $67 million, in assets has been confiscated. I believe that that confiscation goes to prove that the police are on the right track and that legislation such as this bill will make our society a lot safer. When we refer to criminal activities, we talk about drugs, contraband and illegal activities. Most times our young people are the ones who are preyed on. They are the most vulnerable people in our society. I think these amendments will go a long way towards strengthening the act by removing financial gain and seeking to negate such evil activities. A good aspect of this legislation is the provision that states that property held in other states can be returned to Queensland. Also, persons using rented property for illegal gain will be now caught in the net. Property that they own can be confiscated by authorities if those people who are working in that rented property can be proved to be working in illegal activities. These are good amendments, because they mean that the net can close in on these smart alecs—these people who think they are above the law. Any legislation that creates a deterrent and makes these people realise the ills of their ways is good legislation. In terms of the wealth gained through activity in serious crime, unless proven otherwise, no doubt receipts will have to be produced relating to the activities of people if they are going to lose their property. That has always been a requirement of the act. Another amendment in the bill relates to financial institutions. Under this legislation they will be compelled to make known to authorities if people who are suspects have increased their profits through illegal activity. Whilst there will be a confidentiality requirement, I think that closes a very important loophole. To have those accounts suspended or investigated is certainly going to be another way in which authorities can find out who the people are behind these schemes. Many of these schemes are the brainchilds of organised gangs. Those gangs are continuing to cause damage and affect the ongoing viability and welfare of our state. I believe that money laundering and proof of money laundering will certainly create an environment in which criminals will be put on notice that the authorities have the power to go after them. The other amendment that I want to touch on relates to fair trading. This legislation will curb the activities of those door-to-door salespeople who are bugbears or general nuisances at late hours of the afternoon and early evening when people are in their homes and going about their private business. I think that is a very reasonable aspect of this legislation. A family at home does not want anyone coming and knocking on the door after five o’clock. I think this amendment needs to be commended. Importantly, the bill amends the Security Providers Act 1993 to make certain that security companies maintain membership of a security industry association which has been approved by the chief executive. Failure to comply can lead to that company having its licence cancelled or refused. I believe that amendment raises the bar for some of these companies. It forces them to meet behavioural benchmarks and is to be commended. At the same time, it ensures that those people who want to abuse their employment within the security providers industry can be better scrutinised. This industry needs to be put under the spotlight to entice good people into it and to make those good people aware of their responsibilities. I have spoken about this in the House before. Some of the people who tend to be in these roles are nothing but out-and-out thugs. In the past we have seen the spotlight fall on those people. As a result of scrutiny of these people, providers of security are more alert to the types of people they employ and they are put under the light to make certain they comply and that there is no criminal activity. Overall I believe this is a very important piece of legislation. The shadow minister has canvassed many aspects of the detail of the legislation. We are putting the criminal element of this state on notice. I believe that the powers the government is giving the courts and the police will certainly be a deterrent. Whilst we are never going to totally wipe out crime, any sort of deterrent is a good outcome and I commend the legislation. I thank the Attorney for the work that has gone into this. I believe that the outcomes will be beneficial to the people of Queensland. 10 Feb 2009 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 59

Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (5.41 pm): I support the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill, which amends the following acts: the Trusts Act 1973, the Security Providers Act 1993, the Fair Trading Act 1989 and the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002. Amendments to the Trusts Act 1973 are being made following a request from government linked arts institutions for amendments to enable prescribed private funds—generally family controlled charitable funds and ancillary funds—to make donations to the institutions without jeopardising the donor’s tax- exempt status. The Income Tax Assessment Act 1997—the Commonwealth act—only allows charitable foundations to make grants to bodies that are both deductible gift recipients and charities for income tax purposes. While the arts institutions are deductible gift recipients, it is considered by the ATO that for taxation purposes they are not charities at law because of their links with government despite their pursuit of purposes that would be charitable if carried out by a non-government linked body. Following amendments by the Commonwealth to the tax act in 2005, prescribed private funds and ancillary funds are able to donate to government linked bodies as deductible gift recipients regardless of whether the institution is a charity at law. For prescribed private funds and ancillary funds with existing trust deeds, this requires an amendment to the Trusts Act to enable trustees to complete a declaration stating the trust can give to deductible gift recipients that are not charities at law. Separately, the trustees must then make an application for re-endorsement with the Australian tax office as an income tax exempt fund rather than a charitable fund. The bill amends the Trusts Act so that PPFs and ancillary funds can make grants to government linked bodies, whether or not there is an express power to do so in their trust instrument. The bill will ensure that the power, or the exercising of that power, will not invalidate that fund nor affect its status as a charitable trust. PPFs and ancillary funds will be able to opt in to this arrangement by way of completing a signed declaration to be retained by the trust. As noted above, a PPF or ancillary fund will need to then apply to the ATO to change its endorsement from a charitable fund to an income tax exempt fund. The amendments are retrospective to validate grants made by PPFs and ancillary funds to deductible gift recipients before the commencement of the amendments. Victoria and New South Wales have already made similar amendments to their charitable acts to address the problem of charitable foundations being unable to donate to government linked institutions that are established for charitable purposes because they are not charities at law. The Queensland amendments have been modelled on the New South Wales legislation and it is less prescriptive than Victoria’s. The Security Providers Act provides a licensing regime for bodyguards, crowd controllers, security officers, private investigators, security advisers, security equipment installers and security firms—collectively referred to as security providers—who must be licensed to operate in Queensland. The key policy objective of the amendment to the Security Providers Act is to raise standards in the private security industry. The objective delivers on the government’s 2006 announcement that professional security industry associations will be given a supplementary compliance role to ensure security firms are meeting behavioural benchmarks. Following community and industry consultation on possible models earlier this year, the amendments to the Security Providers Act will require security firms to maintain membership of a security industry association approved by the chief executive. Operating standards will also be raised by amending the existing grounds in the Security Providers Act that empower the chief executive to consider suspending, cancelling or refusing to renew a firm’s licence where specified Queensland industrial relations laws are breached to reflect the greater role now played by the Commonwealth workplace relations legislation. Amendments to the Fair Trading Act reflect the government’s increasingly strong approach to protecting consumers from inappropriate door-to-door trading practices. While the Fair Trading Act prescribes prohibited hours for door-to-door trading, it currently allows traders to apply to the chief executive for approval to conduct door-to-door trading outside these hours. The ability of traders to make uninvited approaches to people in their homes causes substantial concern in the community. Some consumers feel apprehensive and fearful of unknown people attending their premises at night, while others consider door-to-door trading to be an unwelcome disruption to their personal and family time. The bill removes the capacity from the Fair Trading Act for traders to be granted exemptions from complying with the allowable hours for door-to-door trading stipulated by section 63 of the Fair Trading Act. Removing capacity for exemptions from the prohibited hours of door-to-door trading will strike a better balance between the ability of traders to conduct door-to-door trading and the community’s right to enjoy privacy at home. Finally, the amendments to the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 are the outcome of a review of the act conducted pursuant to the legislative requirement in section 266. As part of the review process extensive consultation was undertaken with key stakeholders in this area of law and that consultation has guided the amendments proposed. Overall, the review concluded that the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act is generally operating effectively and we have had examples—I think 60 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 10 Feb 2009 mentioned by the shadow minister—that some $69 million to date has been confiscated. The amendments contained in the bill are consistent with the current framework of the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act and aim to improve the act’s ability to achieve its objectives, which are primarily aimed at removing financial gain and increasing the financial loss associated with illegal activity. The review also considered the recommendations of the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee’s report No. 71, which dealt with the confiscation operations of the Crime and Misconduct Commission. All but one of these recommendations have been adopted. I will outline the more significant amendments. The first is overhauling the orders the Supreme Court may make in addition to a restraining order, known as ancillary orders, by recategorising them as either administration orders or investigation orders depending on their nature. For example, an order requiring a person to be examined under oath represents a significant investigative tool for the state and is therefore categorised as an investigative order. Other recommendations are: enabling investigation orders to be made only on application by the state and in some cases without notice; further clarifying that nominated state agencies can disseminate information obtained by compulsory examinations to other agencies in specified circumstances, as was originally intended by the 2002 act; providing a penalty for a person’s noncompliance with an order that requires them to provide to the state within a stated time a sworn statement outlining their property and dealings—a property particulars statement—as the existing provision has no mechanism to enforce compliance with the order; enabling the court to make orders under the act, such as restraining orders and forfeiture orders, with the consent of the parties; clarifying that the court may make orders compelling a person to do anything necessary or convenient to bring property within the jurisdiction; empowering the courts to make tainted property substitution declarations substituting other property for tainted property which is not available for forfeiture and allowing for the restraint of that property pending a declaration being made—for example, where a person has used a rented property to produce drugs so as to avoid the risk of their own property being liable to forfeiture as tainted property; imposing a confidentiality requirement on financial institutions who voluntarily report information under the act to ensure investigations are not compromised and include a provision which compels financial institutions to confirm whether a person holds an account with the institution; and covering, in the offence of money laundering, the situation where a person deals with tainted property being reckless as to whether it is tainted property, as the existing offence requires proof that the person knew or ought reasonably to have known that the property was tainted property. I support the bill. Mrs SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (5.49 pm): Although it has been recognised that this Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill has been effective, there is now a need to broaden the scope and to ensure that those involved in illegal activities do not prosper from their crime. The bill delineates between administration orders, that is, putting additional conditions on orders for payment of legal aid or restraining orders, and investigation orders that will now demand a person give a sworn statement of all property dealings they have conducted, thus facing examination under oath. Penalties will apply should the person not comply and the bill broadens the scope allowing the court to confiscate goods and property from interstate, as well as anything being held in rented property. The offender will also be required to explain an abnormal increase in wealth going back six years and must prove how the funds were obtained. The court will also have the right to return at a later date for explanation on the same case, so surveillance will be ongoing. Money laundering has been with us for a long time, but the onus will be on the offender to prove that they could not have known that the property or goods were obtained through criminal activity. Financial institutions will also be required to assist with investigations. One provision in this bill that I and many members of my community will welcome is the amendment to the Fair Trading Act 1989 to put a stop to door-to-door sales representatives knocking on doors after dark. For many single people, particularly the elderly who live on their own and lone parents with young children, a knock on the door at night can be very threatening and cause fear. It is completely unnecessary for anyone unknown to a resident to knock on their door at night or even around dusk. In this election year, I would like to think that candidates and members of parliament would also respect the privacy of people in their own homes. I also welcome the provisions in this bill to ensure security firms belong to an industry association and conduct their business, along with staff training, in a very professional way. All members are aware that some very sad outcomes have resulted from altercations with security staff. It is important that they are able to deal with the public in a way that reduces the chance of violence and harm being caused to members of the public. Finally, I support the broadening of organisations able to receive tax deductability for donations, such as our major public institutions like the Queensland Museum, the State Library and the Art Gallery. I understand this will require the trustee to opt in by executing a deed acknowledging this new power applies to the trust. It is to be hoped that this will greatly increase the level of philanthropy practised in our state, both by our large corporations and individuals. I thank the Attorney-General and those who were involved in drafting this bill as I believe it will make a real difference in these important areas. I commend the bill to the House. 10 Feb 2009 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 61

Mr DICKSON (Kawana—LNP) (5.53 pm): I rise to speak briefly to the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2008. The bill seeks to amend the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002, and complements and strengthens existing provisions aimed at removing financial gain and increasing financial losses associated with illegal activities. That is the main objective of this act. Who could not support that? As our shadow minister said tonight, this is a reasonably good bill in a few different areas. The bill also amends the Fair Trading Act as it relates to door-to-door salesmen who knock on doors at night, disturbing people in their homes. The legislation will stop a lot of dogs barking at night, which is what my dog and other dogs do when people wander through my community at night. Therefore, I say to the Attorney-General that this is good work. However, the part of the bill that I do not like relates to the Security Providers Act. I am concerned that the proposed changes to the Security Providers Act 1993 will amount to nothing more than compulsory membership. I believe that we all support proper regulations and accountability in the security industry, but I do not believe that these amendments will do anything to increase accountability. They will impose additional costs on industry members through membership fees. We do not require other workers to join unions or associations, and security providers should not be an exception. Of course we must have strong licence regimes, but I fail to see how the forced membership of professional bodies will improve that. There are licences for many occupations in our community, from builders to pawnbrokers. We do not require them to join professional associations. They may benefit from joining associations, but it should be up to the individual or the company to make that decision. They should not be forced into it. That is the problem that I see with this legislation. I turn to the costs involved, which have to be met by somebody—bodyguards, crowd controllers, security officers, private investigators, security advisers, security equipment installers and security firms. Individuals or associates will pay anything up to $114 per annum. People who are involved in the industry will pay anything up to $622. I am talking about mums and dads. Those people are members of our communities. We are going through an economic downturn and we should be looking after those people, but instead we are going to stitch them up. The Rudd government talks about how we have to look after our communities and help the mums and dads. However, this impost will be forced down the throats of those people at a time in history when they cannot afford to cop another hit. One can liken this to Labor’s taxes. They like to increase taxes on boat registration, rates and power. Under this government fees and charges continue to rise. I suppose it is a little bit— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! I would ask the member to return to the provisions currently before the House. Mr DICKSON: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I was saying earlier on, the fees for a business that has an annual turnover of less than $100,000— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Kawana, I have just given you a direction that you are choosing to ignore. I will ask you one more time to refer to the provisions of the bill currently before the House. Thank you. Mr DICKSON: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am speaking directly to the bill. These are the fees and charges that will be charged to organisations of security firms. That is what I am about to state, if that is okay. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has little to do with boating registration. Mr DICKSON: Absolutely. It has nothing to do with boating registrations. For an organisation with an annual turnover of less than $100,000 the fee is $290; for an organisation with an annual turnover between $100,000 and $300,000 the fee is $321; for an organisation that has an annual turnover of $300,000 to $500,000 the fee is $500; for an organisation that has an annual turnover between $500,000 and $1 million the fee is $797; for an organisation that has a turnover between $1 million and $2.5 million the fee is $1,165; for an organisation that has an annual turnover between $2.5 million and $5 million the fee is $1,918; for an organisation that has an annual turnover between $5 million and $10 million the fee is $2,480; for an organisation that has an annual turnover between $10 million and $20 million the fee is $3,259; for an organisation that has an annual turnover between $20 million and $40 million the fee is $5,586; for an organisation that has an annual turnover between $40 million and $75 million the fee is $11,256; for an organisation that has an annual turnover of $75 million or more the fee is $15,318. As I said, those fees and charges are imposed on normal mums and dads. They may be business operators, but they have to get the money from somewhere. Perhaps they stitch up the people who are paying for their services or their workers have to pay it. Somebody has to pay the bill. It is like the $65 billion of debt that the state is in. How did the government get into this situation? If it cannot manage a business in the good times, how will it do it in the bad times? That is the question that the people of Queensland need to know the answer to. 62 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 10 Feb 2009

Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—LNP) (5.58 pm): I am happy to offer bipartisan support on the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill because it will be a valuable legislative weapon against criminals, especially members of organised crime gangs. In addressing this legislation it is important to recognise that it is aimed at the people who choose to deal in death, corruption, human misery and suffering. Unfortunately, after 11 years of legislative neglect the situation now exists in Queensland where fisheries officers who deal with people who have been caught with female mud crabs have stronger powers of confiscation than our police officers who deal with drug dealers and members of organised criminal gangs. Organised crime, indeed all crime, is an economic activity and the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill is designed to hit criminals where it hurts most—in the hip pocket. That is why the LNP has chosen to support this legislation. However, that does not mean that this government is above criticism when one examines its public record of protecting Queensland families from the effects of criminal activities. In recent years there has been an explosion of gang related violence, particularly in south-east Queensland. For 11 years this government’s softly, softly approach to organised crime, where outlaw bikie gangs are granted liquor licences and police are paid to work at outlaw bikie gangs’ charity days, is clearly not working. In supporting this bill I have to bring to the attention of this House this government’s public record of the softly, softly approach taken by both Beattie and now the Bligh Labor government to law and order. The government’s history is one of mismanagement and lack of courage to effectively take on the organised criminals. This bill is a small legislative step in fighting crime and organised criminals in Queensland. But, if it were combined with the Criminal Code (Organised Criminal Groups) Amendment Bill, which was presented to this House in 2007 and was aimed at stamping out gang violence and the spread of drugs at its source, it would have been far more effective. We have chosen to offer our support to this bill, but the government missed a real opportunity when it did not support a bill that would have given a fresh, proactive and groundbreaking approach in the war against organised crime and gang violence—a bill which would have made it a crime to be a member of an organised criminal group or gang. According to author Paul Lunde in his book Organized Crime: An Inside Guide to the World’s Most Successful Industry, organised crime has seven characteristics—durability over time, diversified interests, hierarchical structure, capital accumulation, reinvestment, access to political protection and the use of violence to protect its interests. I note that this bill will attract four of the seven common characteristics. It will directly affect the durability over time of organised crime, the diversified interests of organised crime, the capital accumulation and also the reinvestment that happens as a result of organised crime. The acts amended under the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2008 include the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002, the Fair Trading Act 1989, the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Trusts Act 1973. The amendments to the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 follow a review of the act which was undertaken by the Department of Justice. In general, it was found that the act was operating effectively. However, there were a number of amendments identified. The review was also a result of recommendations made by the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee. A number of its recommendations were adopted bar two. The recommendations sought after by the CMC and endorsed by the PCMC included: the introduction of express provisions into the act to ensure that it applies to property held outside Queensland, including property held offshore, as currently the court cannot order a person to return property that is held outside Queensland; a clarification of existing provisions to differentiate between administrative orders and investigative orders, with notice required for seeking administrative orders and with the investigative orders to be accessible only by the state and available on an ex parte basis in certain circumstances; the insertion of provisions into the act to clarify the use that can be made of information and evidence obtained during a court ordered examination of a person regarding his or her property; an amendment to ensure that the reversal of the onus of proof relating to proceeds assessment applications is consistent with the onus in respect of forfeiture; amendments to provide that the making of a pecuniary penalty order does not prevent the court from later making a proceeds assessment order based on the same serious crime related activity, taking into account the amount of any such pecuniary penalty; an amendment to allow the court to make a repatriation order or a property substitution order in respect of forfeitable property, therefore rendering ineffective attempts to divest forfeitable property before the application for a restraining order is made because other property of the respondent could be made subject to forfeiture instead; and, finally, a provision for penalties in the act to attach to non-disclosure of assets under an examination order or, alternatively, a provision for forfeiture of non-disclosed assets. In short, the proposed amendments to the act that we are debating here today include new powers to seize a criminal’s interstate or overseas property, including cash; new powers to substitute alternative possessions for seizure when the tainted property has already been disposed of; and a new offence of reckless money laundering, under clause 57 which amends section 250, aimed at persons who recklessly handle stolen goods or cash, with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. This 10 Feb 2009 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 63 new amendment to section 250 under clause 57 describes the offence as ‘knowingly engaging in money laundering’, where a person recklessly ‘engages, directly or indirectly, in a transaction involving money or other property that is tainted property’; or ‘receives, possesses, disposes of or brings into Queensland money or other property that is tainted property’; or ‘conceals or disguises’ various aspects of the tainted property such as its source or ownership. The amendments to the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 are said to be aimed at removing the financial gain and increasing the financial loss associated with illegal activity. The confiscation of property of course is not a new concept. As has been mentioned by the shadow minister, the approach was implemented in Australia back in 1977 through the Customs Act 1901, which was amended to permit seizure and confiscation of proceeds of drug related crimes and the drugs. Over the years, as has been pointed out in the Parliamentary Library research brief, this confiscation procedure has expanded from its sole focus on drug related crimes to include other crime activity, including terrorism, money laundering, corruption and murder. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology— ... the aims of the assets confiscation regime in Australia are twofold. First, the removal of funds generated by criminal activities is intended to deprive criminals of the benefits of their financially motivated criminality, thus reducing the motivation for offending. In addition, the Australian Institute of Criminology’s strategy of ‘removing access to assets generated from criminal activities reduces the capital available to perpetrators to future criminal ventures’. In Queensland, two ways exist to obtain proceeds of a crime, including the criminal confiscation after a person is convicted of a criminal offence, which is administered by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the civil based scheme, where the CMC has the responsibility for civil confiscation under the act, which allows the CMC to restrain property on the basis of reasonable suspicion of serious crime related activity. Parliamentary Library research shows that, as per the CMC’s annual report 2007- 08, since January 2003 to 30 June 2008, the CMC has, with the cooperation of the DPP, the Queensland Police Service and other Queensland law enforcement agencies, restrained $66.95 million in assets and $13.3 million in assets has been forfeited to the state. During the 2007-08 financial year, the CMC restrained $18.56 million in assets and confiscated approximately $4.67 million from crime figures in Queensland. In addition, the Parliamentary Library research notes that, under the conviction based scheme, $5.43 million has been forfeited since 2003, including $1.27 million which was recovered in the 2007-08 financial year. As previously stated by my colleagues, we hold concerns in relation to the amendments to the Security Providers Act, which may as well be stated as forced unionisation of the security industry and will mean extra costs to providers by way of membership fees. This amendment will actually give the chief executive the power to cancel or disallow a licence for a security provider if they are not a member of a recognised Australian security industry association. The National Australian Security Providers Association is strongly opposed to any laws that force security providers to join an association, stating that membership to an association should be on a voluntary basis and security providers should have the right to choose which association they want to join, if at all. I support the bill before the House with the exception of the amendments to the Security Providers Act where security providers are being forced to join an association or union. The government generally opposes any legislation which has the word ‘mandatory’ in it. I remember the debate when members on this side of the House put forward legislation which would have seen the imposition of mandatory jail sentences for people found guilty of seriously assaulting police, prison, fire or ambulance officers. That mandatory legislative provision, which would have offered more protection to our hardworking police officers and public servants, was roundly condemned by those opposite. If only those government members who now argue so strongly for mandatory union or association membership did so for mandatory jail sentences for people who assault police. I would like to impress on those opposite that, even if we have the best legislation in the world, unless there is political will to properly resource our police and our CMC, which I know are underresourced, then the legislation that we pass through this place will be a failure. The classic case of underresourcing for police was when a baby was inadvertently abducted during a car theft. A media alert was put out, every available police officer was tasked to look for that child and, thankfully, the search had a happy ending. However, in watching the media report in that story the point was made to me that we are the only police force in Australia that does not have a police helicopter. We have to rely on SES helicopters. I will return to the bill. In closing, I would like to honour and recognise the members of our Police Service and our CMC who take great risks to protect us from the effects of criminals and organised crime gangs. Mr FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (6.11 pm): I rise to participate in the debate on the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill. I am very supportive of any legislation that is tough on organised crime. I think the enactment of this bill tonight might see a few organised criminals crying in their beer. Any reasonable minded person would welcome the ability to seize overseas assets 64 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 10 Feb 2009 or interstate assets that have been derived by criminal activity and to crack down on money laundering. This bill is not just about criminal proceeds. In fact, it amends the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002, the Fair Trading Act 1989, the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Trusts Act 1973, where it talks specifically about prescribed private funds, or PPFs. I turn to the amendments to the Fair Trading Act. While the Fair Trading Act prescribes prohibited hours for door-to-door trading, it currently allows traders to apply to the chief executive for approval outside of those hours for their activities. I think elderly people tend to be trusting of other people, especially people who may front up to their door, and particularly out of hours those people can look good and can sound legitimate but are often high-pressure salespeople who would fit very well into the category of fly-by-nighters. That is not to say that they are all bad, but I do not believe that people need to be disturbed in their homes outside of hours, especially in light of the security risk that that poses. The bill deals with bogus collectors. In recent days we have had warnings about this with the tragic victims of the bushfires in Victoria. We have been reminded that during Ash Wednesday people were trying to extort money from people on the basis that they were officially collecting for disasters. Those people are the lowest of the low. They should be locked up and have the key thrown away for a good, long time. In regard to door-to-door knocking, I have a high-tech, very sophisticated security system in my house: a blue heeler called Monty who provides a very vigorous welcoming committee to people who knock on my door uninvited after hours. A person’s home is their castle and people, especially elderly people, should be able to live without fear of having to make difficult decisions as to whether to respond to a person’s call or not. There are amendments to the Security Providers Act 1993. There is a plethora of surveillance stuff that is available on the internet. I was looking at a site the other day, being a bit of a gadget freak, and some of the surveillance stuff that can be bought on the internet is unbelievable. It is not just security providers caught by these amendments but also security equipment installers and security firms, because they operate in an environment where they are privy to being able to put together things that may be used for non-legitimate purposes. I believe the industry should be happy with changes that raise its behavioural benchmarks. I dread switching on the TV news at night and seeing someone who has been bashed by a bouncer. While that is not always the bouncer’s fault, this type of violent crime and wild west behaviour really has to be curtailed. The One Punch Can Kill campaign illustrates that a person can be smacked in the head, their head can smack the pavement and then it is all over red rover. These are unbelievable tragedies wrought on families. I believe the amendments to the Security Providers Act should put that particular industry in a more respected light with the general public. I had to read the amendments to the Trusts Act fairly carefully. We need to be careful that people do not confuse them with PPFs. In the second reading speech the minister talks about generally family controlled charitable funds. This is not to be confused with discretionary family trusts. If you have a business that is owned by a family trust, that can be put through to a range of beneficiaries—both corporate and individual, and also charities, churches et cetera that may be named in the trust deed. What that effectively does is move the tax liability or onus onto the person who receives that benefit. With family trusts people need to be very cautious about making willy-nilly amendments to their trust deed. There are some amendments talked about in here, as that action may be deemed to constitute a resettlement of the deed which can have less than desirable stamp duty implications and capital gains tax implications. The members for Ipswich West and Kallangur, being bean counters, will know exactly what I am talking about. The State Library, for instance, has a charitable intent even though it is essentially a government controlled institution. Even though that is not defined as a charity for tax purposes, certainly it has a charitable intent. I think the amendment to the Trusts Act is very welcome. We now live in a time where, with the worldwide economic meltdown, there is pressure on government budgets, both state and federal. Unfortunately, government funding is often cut back in difficult times to what people would see as rather mundane organisations that just continue on and provide a very low profile service to the community. I think anything that helps with that philanthropic spirit and helps it to thrive is a good and welcome addition. In terms of the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act, top of mind is the expression that comes to mind. We have had the series that talked about the Victorian crime situation and now Underbelly: A Tale of Two Cities in relation to the Sydney crime situation. While these are dramatisations and we should take into account the normal dramatic licence that is being used, they do tell a true story about people like Don Mackay in Griffith who was a tireless campaigner against illegally gained revenue for drug cartels and in fact paid for it with his life. I think any fair-minded person would realise that if we remove the financial incentives to undertake criminal activity and at the same time increase the financial penalties for such activity then we will have a double-edged sword. Any fair-minded person who works hard and pays their taxes would absolutely salute the intent of this legislation to curtail those activities. 10 Feb 2009 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 65

This bill makes amendments to the Fair Trading Act. We have talked before about the fact that, even though the laws are there to curtail these activities, people will still come up with a good sob story. People are very creative in finding loopholes in existing legislation. I applaud the tightening up in that regard. I would like to hear more details from the Attorney-General. Are there any circumstances the Attorney can think of that may warrant a loophole? I cannot think of any, but I would be interested in the minister’s comments on that. With regard to the Security Providers Act 1993, the bill states that operating standards will be raised by amending the existing grounds in the SP Act that empower the chief executive to consider suspending, cancelling or refusing to renew a firm’s licence where specified Queensland industrial relations laws are breached. In my accountancy and financial planning days, when I was the responsible officer for our security dealers business there was a clear shift to the dealer being directly responsible for the activities of the advisers who worked under them. That put the fear of the good Lord in a lot of different businesses. It is the same thing here. If a person is not a one-off security person and they work under a corporate banner or agency then the firm they work for is responsible for their actions and those of the other people who work for them. If I were in that business I would be asking some very hard questions of potential employees with regard to their criminal convictions and their general background. I would also do some psychological profiling. The last thing we want is a return to the bad old days of pub bouncing where if someone was very aggressive then a person who was intimidatory in appearance would be very quick to bash the living daylights out of someone they saw as a non-complying patron. We need to move away from that to the much more professional realm. This bill endeavours to do that. I would also welcome some comments from the Attorney-General about whether there are any banning provisions and, if there are, whether they are permanent or time based provisions. I have not had the opportunity to look into it to that extent. I turn to the compulsory acquisition of property. It is an interesting thing. One of the great legislative understatements is the term ‘unjust enrichment’. When it comes to the proceeds of crime, I find that a very amusing and understated term. The act does contain the following safeguards. A person can apply to exclude property from an order if it is shown that the person’s interest in the property was not in fact illegally acquired. There are provisions which assist in protecting the rights and interests of third parties. Often in situations of criminal activity and the ownership of property it is the spouses and children of the people who go to jail who are affected, even if they were not complicit in the criminal activity. I think it is wise to at least have those provisions. The reversal of the onus of proof has been talked about. Many speakers have touched on that. People of the civil libertarian persuasion may be very concerned about the reversal of the onus of proof. It is great to remember that that only kicks in once it is clear that the state has established that they have been involved in a serious crime related activity. It is not just a willy-nilly onus of proof reversal again. With the couple of clarifications that I seek from the Attorney-General, I point out that this is a great piece of legislation that most reasonable Queenslanders would be comfortable with. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (6.24 pm): I support the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2008. This bill amends the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002, the Fair Trading Act 1989, the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Trusts Act 1973. The review of the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 concluded that the act was operating effectively, which is always good news. In 2007-08, under the civil scheme $4.67 million was forfeited to the state. Under the conviction based scheme $5.43 million has been collected by the state since 2003. Some $1.27 million was recovered in 2007-08. The amendments in this particular bill include new orders for examination, that state agencies can disseminate information to other agencies in specific circumstances—that is, information which has been obtained during compulsory examinations—that courts may order that a person can do anything necessary to bring property within the Queensland jurisdiction, which is a good amendment, and an offender can be caught having his or her own house subject to forfeiture even though illicit drugs may have been cooked up in rented premises, which I also think is very good. I am pleased that there is to be a confidentiality requirement on banks and other financial institutions who may have voluntarily reported information under the act. I am very pleased that the Fair Trading Act is being amended. It is about protecting families from inappropriate door-to-door trading. In my electorate family time is certainly very precious. We often have mum and dad out to work. I can tell members that they get very annoyed with people knocking on their front door of an evening when they are trying to give the kids dinner and assist with homework. They do not want door-to-door salespeople rocking up at their front door trying to sell them something that they actually do not want. The elderly in my community get very concerned and very scared and frightened when strangers turn up at their front door. Some of these people keep on knocking and knocking. Some of them can also be very rude and disrespectful to our older people. 66 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 10 Feb 2009

The good people in the Bundamba electorate are not backward in coming forward. Some of my constituents tell these door-to-door salespeople exactly what they think of them, sometimes in very colourful language, which upsets those people trying to make a sale. I commend the minister for the amendments to the Fair Trading Act because it is forward thinking. People are very concerned about people rocking up to their front door. They do not want it to happen at all. With those few comments in relation to this particular amendment bill, I would like to say that I am pleased that the opposition is supporting it. I hope the Independents will support the legislation before the House. It is simple legislation which is very good for consumers in general. I commend the bill to the House. Sitting suspended from 6.28 pm to 7.30 pm. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (7.30 pm): While dealing with the proceeds of crime, this bill also amends the Queensland Fair Trading Act 1989, and that is the area that I intend to speak about tonight. Permissible hours for door-to-door trading are Monday to Friday between 9 am and 6 pm and Saturday from 9 am to 5 pm while it is prohibited on Sundays and public holidays. Previously individual traders and companies could apply to the chief executive for an exemption for door-to-door trading outside the prescribed hours. Under this bill, exemptions will no longer be approved by the chief executive for after- hours door-to-door trading. Any existing applications for exemptions will be extinguished by virtue of these amendments. I have to say that I am extremely pleased that these amendments are being put through the House tonight and I am very happy to rise to speak in support of this bill for a number of reasons. It was not that long ago that I can remember getting knocks on the door after eight or nine o’clock at night, and they were usually from salespeople calling on us at home to try to sell us telephone plans. At that time I remember there was a lady living at Mount Gravatt who received one of those doorknocks—it was definitely after 8 pm; I have a feeling it was around 9 pm—and she rang her local state member of parliament. That woman was very lucky—very fortunate—because it was me who answered the phone, because I was actually the electorate officer at the Mount Gravatt electorate office at the time. I remember taking that phone call and discussing the situation with her. I knew exactly how she felt, because when you live by yourself you do get scared and more fearful when there is someone knocking at your door late at night. The way that person was knocking on her door, this lady thought there was somebody in trouble and she therefore answered the door. She said that other people in the same situation would have felt quite scared once they opened the door and realised that it was not a neighbour in trouble but rather a salesperson. She did the right thing by ringing her local member of parliament, who at that time was not only the member for Mount Gravatt but also the fair trading minister. Judy Spence took her concerns on board. Therefore, we should be thanking Judy Spence because it was Judy Spence who introduced the legislation with regard to the hours that people could knock on our doors, while tonight we need to thank the Attorney for ensuring this continues. I know how important this issue is for our seniors and for mothers with little ones who might be by themselves at home at night when people they are not expecting come knocking on their door. This legislation certainly gives them more security, so I thank the minister very much. People knocking on our door after certain hours annoy our privacy and annoy the only time people get to spend at home to do something nice with the family. That time is interrupted, so I really thank the Attorney and Minister Spence for bringing in and keeping these laws. We often hear people say, ‘One person can’t change anything. Why go and talk to my MP because I’m only one lone person who can’t really change much?’ I love using this example, because that lady from Mount Gravatt was the one who got the ball rolling in terms of hours of door-to-door salespeople. I love using that example and saying to people, ‘Yes, you can make a difference.’ It is important to mention that these amendments do not affect the charities that doorknock. In light of the dreadful events in Victoria, we are very pleased that charities fall under different legislation and are able to keep doorknocking and doing the vital work that they do. These amendments strike the right balance between allowing reasonable door-to-door trading activity and protecting the rights of consumers to enjoy their privacy within their own homes. We are not making it hard for people to go out there and earn a living. We in fact have a good balance. We are certainly not preventing people from making their own independent business inquires to companies if that is their intent. With those few words, I commend the bill to the House. Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (7.34 pm): Members of the public demand that people who do the crime do the time. They also demand that offenders pay back the community in full and more if there is any possible way of doing that. Members of the public are very clear that people should not benefit from their crime in any way. The ability of governments to confiscate the proceeds of crime is a very important law enforcement tool and a very important area of justice. I support this bill in its aim to strengthen the ability of our government to recover and seize proceeds of crime from serious offenders. As a kid I recall the so-called ‘great train robber’ Ronald Biggs and I remember my mother and others talking about him and how he fled to the UK. The discussion around our table for a little while was if he would get to keep the money, and there was quite substantial money involved. I am not sure what 10 Feb 2009 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 67 happened in his life—whether he was brought back or what happened—but the big issue in my family related to whether Ronald would get to keep the money. That is an issue that a lot of people raise—that is, will people who are benefiting from young kids buying drugs or people stealing property get to benefit from it? Certainly the public is demanding that we strengthen these sorts of laws to ensure they do not benefit from it. I commend the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice for adopting and implementing recommended changes to the confiscation laws, and I know that the CMC, the Director of Public Prosecutions and other key stakeholders have been recommending changes in key areas of this legislation. The assets confiscation regime in Queensland has two main aims. The first is to seize funds generated by criminal activities so that offenders get no gain from the pain of others and the second is to limit the resources available for them to commit future crimes. It seems by all accounts that the system is working fairly effectively. When we look at some of the assets and the volume of assets and money that has been retrieved, we realise that it is quite significant. It appears that since January 2003, when the civil based regime commenced, to 30 June 2008 the CMC has, with the cooperation of the DPP, the police and other law enforcement agencies, restrained $66.95 million in assets—and I think the minister mentioned that in his second reading speech—and during the 2007-08 financial year the CMC restrained $18.56 million in assets and confiscated around $4.67 million from crime figures in Queensland. Under the conviction based scheme, $5.3 million has been forfeited since 2003, of which $1.27 million was recovered in the 2007-08 financial year. They are quite significant amounts. It is not small bickies. But when we consider the sorts of profits that serious criminals and offenders are gaining from their activities, we see that there is still a long way to go in terms of the ability of government and law enforcement agencies to acquire and seize some of those assets. There would be enormous volumes in property and all sorts of assets that we are unable to seize. I particularly want to commend the changes in the bill recommending that this law apply to property held outside of Queensland. My understanding is that we have been unable to seize property from interstate or property held offshore. Clever offenders are going to put a lot of their assets offshore or in bank accounts or other places which mean that police in Queensland cannot track it down. There are a number of other provisions, but I do not intend to go into the detail of those. I simply wanted to commend the minister. These are important efforts. One of the first things people in my electorate ask is, ‘How do we get back some of this property? We hope people aren’t benefiting from these sorts of crimes.’ I know the Neighbourhood Watch groups often have guest speakers come in from the Police Service to talk about this area of law, and it is pleasing to be able to get back to these local people and let them know that we are strengthening these provisions. I also want to comment quickly on the bill and its amendments to the Security Providers Act which will require licensed security firms to maintain membership of a security industry association. I do not have a lot of late night venues in my area, but certainly there have been some complaints about a number of activities in venues that are operating late at night. Some of those complaints have related to the behaviour of security providers and so-called bouncers. In terms of their training, their supervision and how security companies operate, I think we have come a long way. But it is important that we remain vigilant. Some of these people have used thuggish tactics. Those sorts of tactics only breed thuggish responses. Violence begets violence. Then we have all-out brawls in some of these venues. When it is traced back to a source, it has not necessarily been a customer or patron of that service; it has been a security officer or a bouncer. So I think there are a lot of issues in regard to the security industry that we need to remain vigilant about. Requiring security providers to maintain membership of a security industry association and having those peak bodies provide more peer supervision or support to their members is an important way of maintaining some control over that industry and those individual companies involved. The minister has some good things in this legislation. I say: well done; nine out of 10. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (7.40 pm): Nine out of 10? We had better go 10 out of 10. I rise to speak in support of this legislation. It contains a number of elements that are important to our community. We have already heard previous speakers talking about the amendments to the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act that are contained in this legislation. People who are bent on selling illegal products to members of the community and who cause a great deal of heartache in the process are not affected by stories of harm and death. They do not worry them. I am convinced of that. So we have to hit them where it hurts the most. One of those ways is by imprisonment. But for some who are so hardened, going to prison for a number of years is softened by the fact that when they emerge there will be a significant financial nest egg waiting for them. This legislation removes that nest egg where it can be proven that the finances that have been aggregated are the proceeds of crime. There is a reverse onus of proof. In a lot of instances that could generate concern, but I believe if a significant amount of money is involved, a person should be able to 68 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 10 Feb 2009 prove from where those funds originated. Their inability to do so in that instance will trigger the confiscation process. As the previous speaker said, I believe that the majority of people in the community will support the confiscation process because they do not want to see criminals benefiting from their illegal activity. The amendments to the Fair Trading Act are also welcome. As previous speakers have said, there are many old and vulnerable people in the community. Those who want to operate in an inappropriate manner either target people who have a diminished capacity to understand and process the information that is provided to them at the door or go to people of more senior years at a time when they are probably operating less optimally—and that is as it gets later in the day. For many old people, a knock on the door can be a very expensive event. For others, as previous speakers have said, it is an event that causes a great deal of fear. So to legislate the trading hours, as has been the case for a long time, is a good thing. But many companies applied for exemptions and were granted exemptions. This amendment will remove that opportunity. We will be able to say with certainty to residents in our communities, ‘These are the trading hours during which people can come to your door and offer you goods and services and if they come outside of those hours, come back to us, because they will have been in breach of those provisions.’ I welcome that. I remember when I was only a kid that a collector came to the door and my grandmother gave them £20, which at the time was a huge amount of money. That was back in the early 1960s. That door-to- door salesperson never questioned my grandmother once. She was obviously a pensioner on her own. That was a huge amount of money and nothing was said. I know for the rest of my mum’s life it stuck in her craw that her mother was taken advantage of in that way. It was because older people—at that time more so—were very trusting of young ones or people who came to the door with apparent good intent. The only other issue that I want to touch on is the amendments that the bill makes to the Security Providers Act, which requires security providers—the companies—and subsequently the individuals who work as security people to join an association. I know one of the previous speakers on the opposition side said that they had concerns about the mandatory membership of associations and unions. I do not support the mandatory membership of unions. I think people should be able to make that choice. But it is ironic that when the weapons legislation was introduced back in the mid 1990s, there really was an overt obligation for gun holders to be a member of a gun club. At the time the coalition and the Labor Party supported that legislation wholeheartedly. If a person did not have a property of a certain size, a person could not hold a weapon. If a person did not have permission to go on to a property for the purposes of shooting roos, pigs or whatever, then that person could not get a licence. But if a person was a member of a gun club, they could. A lot of people want to keep a weapon for very valid reasons. If you live on small acreage or in a town and you want to have a weapon—it may be a family rifle, it may be a gun that you want for whatever reason—you have to be a member of the national shooters association and your local shooters association. That is pretty much mandatory. I think that the benefit of this mandated membership of the Security Providers Association is that it provides security providers with an opportunity to disseminate information and training. There will be a databank that people can access which will provide information, changes to legislation and behavioural and supervisory obligations. I believe this will provide an excellent opportunity for governments now and in the future to be able to provide training and information to these people who are in positions of significant authority. Security providers are not police—and I understand that—but they exercise quite a significant amount of control over people in the community. We have had an unfortunate number of incidents where patrons at hotels and clubs have been injured or have died as a result of altercations with other patrons and with security providers. Therefore, it is essential that good training, good information and good supervision is attached to that position and to that line of work. So I do not have any problem with the fact that the bill mandates membership of an association. It is an association of like-minded peers. Therefore, I believe it provides the opportunity for very positive outcomes. I support the bill. Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—LNP) (7.34 pm): I rise to make a short contribution to the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2008, which was introduced into the Queensland Legislative Assembly by the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland on 2 December 2008. The bill seeks to amend the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 following a review to ensure that it continues to remain effective. As members have already heard from the honourable member for Toowoomba South, the LNP will be supporting this bill. In addition, this bill amends the Fair Trading Act 1989, the Security Providers Act 1993 and the Trusts Act 1973. The key objectives of the bill are to strengthen existing provisions that aim to remove financial gain, to reduce the motivation to reoffend and to increase the financial loss associated with illegal activity. By removing assets accrued through criminal activities, perpetrators are somewhat limited in their access to capital that would enable them to commit certain future crimes. 10 Feb 2009 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 69

The amendments to the Fair Trading Act 1989 remove the capacity for exemptions from the prohibited hours of door-to-door trading. As we have heard from other honourable members in the House this evening, it will be a welcome relief to allow a lot of consumers privacy in their own homes. However, in Currumbin it is what happens a little bit later in the night that aggravates people—when the hoons, the graffitists and the vandals decide to wake them up in the middle of the night. The changes to the Security Providers Act 1993 are mooted to improve industry standards through establishing a requirement that security firms belong to an approved industry association and to amend existing provisions to reflect the Commonwealth’s greater role in industry associations and to amend the existing provisions to reflect the Commonwealth’s greater role in industrial relations regulation. Honourable members have already heard the shadow Attorney’s reservations with regard to the enforced membership of an association, which was also supported by the honourable member for Gladstone. Amendments to the Trusts Act 1973 would enable bodies which are deductible gift recipients, such as the State Library and the Queensland Art Gallery, to receive donations from prescribed private fund and ancillary fund donors without compromising the donor’s tax exempt status. The explanatory notes state that the bill came about following a Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee review in October 2006. Report No. 71 considered a submission from the CMC recommending a number of changes to the act. All but two of these recommendations have been included in the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill before us tonight. The proposed amendments to this act include a new power to seize a criminal’s interstate or overseas property; new power to substitute alternative possessions for seizure when the tainted property has already been disposed of; and a new offence of reckless money laundering aimed at persons who recklessly handle stolen goods or cash with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment attached. The bill also introduces investigation orders without notice in appropriate circumstances and is essential to freeze further criminal activity while the investigation takes place. A number of issues were raised in the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee Alert Digest No. 1 of 2009 and these include whether the legislation has sufficient regard to the rights and liberties of individuals, consistency with principles of natural justice, the disclosure of private or confidential information without sufficient justification and acquisition of property with fair compensation. In response to the question regarding the provision of the reversal of the onus of proof without adequate justification, the committee recognises that reverse onus mechanisms are central to the capacity of civil based forfeiture schemes to achieve their purpose and these are demonstrated in this bill before us tonight. The Alert Digest does, however, refer to parliament whether clauses 20 and 45 provide appropriate protection against self-incrimination. Perhaps the Attorney-General would be kind enough to address that in his reply. Back in 1983 Australian police ministers recommended that all Australian jurisdictions develop laws to address the accumulation of criminal assets. With the passage of time, confiscation orders have broadened beyond drug related offences to cover other crimes such as terrorism, murder, corruption and money laundering. Research conducted in 2004 indicates that fraud constitutes the greatest source of laundered funds, followed by the illegal drug trade. Yet it is the illicit trade in drugs that is displayed regularly via the media which has seen an increase in violent assaults and is affecting our youth at earlier ages. Every time that we manage to catch one of these profiteering drug lords we do a great service to our society. The benefits filter through the community, especially in cases where money laundering criminals have been caught and the proceeds confiscated. I draw the attention of the House to the 2005 landmark case of Charles Cannon who had property seized under the current act that sent a strong message that drug traffickers could lose the proceeds of their crimes. Cannon used profit from his successful drug business, together with his legitimate businesses, to fund an extravagant lifestyle. This deception is classic behaviour of Cannon’s type of criminal and is a good example of the necessity for this bill which will allow for provisions within it to be used more effectively. On 18 November 2005 Detective Senior Constable Walker was quoted in the Courier-Mail as saying— Organised crime is all about the money and if you remove the money you can certainly thwart the business. Disturbingly though, outlaw motorcycle gang numbers appear to be swelling in Queensland, as can be witnessed on the Gold Coast with gangs such as the Finks, the Rebels, the Lone Wolves and the Black Uhlans all with clubrooms based there. Last year in March the Courier-Mail reported that a Currumbin based bikie gang member of the Lone Wolves had been accused of slicing off a man’s ears over a $40,000 drug debt. This gory act was carried out in a very picturesque part of the Currumbin Valley. These gangs are multimillion-dollar enterprises and are involved in organised crimes at a particularly high and sinister level. Violence, standover tactics, money laundering and drug activity has also increased. Honourable members may well remember the ballroom blitz between the Finks and the Hells Angels at the respected Royal Pines Resort on the Gold Coast in March 2006 which shocked local citizens. Guns, knives, chairs and glasses were weapons chosen when these two gangs attacked each other at a public tournament. 70 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 10 Feb 2009

A much more reported and certainly less violent case and one followed intensely by the media is that of the now somewhat infamous . The Corby case is an example of how new amendments under section 16 and 17 in this piece of legislation, which seek to cover serious crimes that occur under the laws of other jurisdictions including those outside Australia, will work. Although there is mixed opinion on whether Schapelle is guilty of drug trafficking, there is no doubt she has gained a celebrity-like status while languishing in an Indonesian jail and has sought to make a profit by selling her story. A Courier-Mail article by Greg Stolz in June 2007 revealed that nearly $270,000 in proceeds from her tell-all book were frozen by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. Attempts like this to profit from breaking the law are all too familiar and it is to be hoped that this legislation will stifle this practice. It is not helpful that agents line up with open chequebooks to encourage those who have fallen from grace, for the most part as a result of their own deeds, to sell their stories. Voyeurism is big and if one watches the trend emerging on Australian television, crooks are being glamorised to resemble unlucky fools. It should be of major concern that the series Underbelly, a glorified portrayal of the Moran family at the centre of the iniquitous gangland drug wars in Melbourne, created so much interest amongst viewers. What confusion for young developing minds. They watch the worst criminals, petty criminals, corrupt police, undisclosed names due to privacy, and their wives amid these scenarios all seeking empathy for their situation and selling their story. Without a doubt we should be worried about the fine line between fiction and reality, not to mention the blurred lines between vice and virtue. Last night the second series started on the case of , another very unsavoury character. We should not be painting these murderers and thugs as anything less than what they are. They live by the gun, they die by the gun and they have no respect for the law. They need to be told in no uncertain terms that crime does not pay. It is to be hoped that this legislation will go some way to remind them of that. For too long this government has been soft on crime. I am very happy tonight to be able to commend this bill to the House. Mr DEMPSEY (Bundaberg—LNP) (7.57 pm): I rise to speak on the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2008. The Australian Institute of Criminology recently stated that the assets confiscation regime in Australia has two aims: the first to remove funds generated from criminal activities by depriving criminals of their ill-gotten gains and reducing the motivation to offend; the second to remove access to assets generated from criminal activities in order to limit the capital available to perpetrators of future crimes. I fully support the confiscation changes as a way to reduce criminal activities and inhibit the matrix of criminal networks that are spread far and wide, not just across states but across nations throughout the world. In 1983 Australian police ministers recommended that all Australian jurisdictions develop laws to address the accumulation of criminal assets. With the passage of time confiscation laws have broadened beyond drug related offences to cover other crimes such as terrorism, murder, corruption and money laundering. Legislation such as we have here this evening provides two ways of recovering proceeds of crime. The first is via a conviction based regime so that assets associated with a crime can be recovered after someone is convicted. The second method of legislative confiscation is via a civil based regime. The amendments to the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 are the outcome of a review of the act. It is indeed very pleasing that the review also considered the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee’s recommendations from its report No. 71 as they relate to the Crime and Misconduct Commission’s confiscation operations. Supported financial figures show that since the introduction of the civil confiscation scheme in 2003 assets totalling $66.95 million have been retained under the scheme. This indeed highlights the need for legislators to keep in time with our courts and police, to keep one step ahead of serious criminal behaviour. I support these amendments as they complement and strengthen existing provisions that aim to remove the financial gain and increase the financial loss associated with illegal activities. This bill overhauls the orders that the Supreme Court may make in addition to a restraining order, currently known as auxiliary orders, by recategorising them as either administration orders or investigation orders, depending on their nature. The bill further clarifies that nominated state agencies can disseminate information obtained during compulsory examinations to other agencies in specified circumstances. This sharing of information is vital in the fight against crime and highlights the need for interdepartmental cooperation to identify criminal activities. The bill also provides a penalty for a person’s noncompliance with an order that requires them to provide a property particulars statement to the state within a certain time. Currently there are no sanctions for noncompliance with this order. This amendment provides a very practical way to assist law enforcement agencies and get rid of the loopholes that have previously assisted criminals in their activities. This legislation can now affect criminals and their property outside Queensland. A court can require property held in other states to be returned to Queensland. Obviously that will help in the long- term battle against crime within the different agencies. 10 Feb 2009 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 71

Amendments to the proceeds assessment orders provision are also welcomed in relation to offenders who have engaged in serious crime related activities and have unexplained increases in wealth or expenditure in the preceding six years. I will ask the minister about the reasoning behind this six-year term, because we know that criminals have the capacity to hold onto wealth for a greater period. The court must treat that wealth as derived from illegal activities unless the offender can prove that the wealth was lawfully acquired. In these days of accountability and plastic card transactions it is quite reasonable to place such a compliance requirement on people appearing before our courts. The amendments also include a provision that compels financial institutions to confirm whether a person holds an account with that institution and imposes confidentiality requirements on that institution. Currently the offence of money laundering requires proof that the offender knew or ought reasonably to have known that the property he or she dealt with was tainted property. This bill amends that offence to cover the situation where a person deals with tainted property and is reckless as to whether it is tainted property. We have heard the scenario of the extra-cheap television that is sold from the back of a truck. This amendment brings Queensland offences into line with those in other jurisdictions including the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Tasmania and Victoria, providing a low-level offence for reckless money laundering, and will act as a deterrent to those who have previously not been caught for this type of offence. Criminals must be hit hard and given no incentives to operate in this great state of Queensland. Criminals must be sent a message that they have no future in Queensland and that wrecking the lives of Queensland mums, dads and children will not be condoned. This bill and the soon-to-be-debated Telecommunications Interception Bill complement each other and send the message that the community is finally getting serious about major crime. The legislation will also have a major impact on the drug tourism industry that has flourished under the current state government. Through the introduction of this bill I also ask that this state government increase staff within the Police Service and the CMC to assist with the increased workload of court matters as well as investigation matters. At the end of the day, visions, dreams and even legislation are only good if they are acted upon. I support the legislation and the reduction of harmful drugs and corruption in our community. Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—LNP) (8.04 pm): I rise to make a brief contribution to the debate on the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill. At the outset I reiterate our support for the bill and commend the shadow minister, the member for Toowoomba South, on his contribution to debate of the bill. Of the four acts amended by this bill, I would like to address specifically the amendments to the Trusts Act 1973. Part 5 of the bill—clauses 80 to 86—contains a raft of amendments that affect the way donations are received by Queensland institutions that fall outside the legal classification of a charitable trust. As the shadow minister for the arts, I am particularly interested in these amendments as two of the organisations affected by this legislation are the Queensland Art Gallery and the State Library of Queensland. As the Attorney-General noted in his second reading speech, the Queensland Art Gallery and the State Library are not considered charities at law, which not only has its own tax implications but also precludes charitable foundations donating to those public institutions. Previously, in order for charitable foundations to retain their tax exemption grants, donations could only be made to charitable trusts. The federal taxation rules prevented charitable foundations donating money to other forms of trusts such as that operated by the board and trustees of the Queensland Art Gallery. Whilst it could rightfully be said that institutions like the Queensland Art Gallery, which provides free admission to most exhibitions and has played an integral role in developing Queensland’s cultural and arts scene, have a charitable purpose that would certainly fit within the charitable heads established in Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income Tax v Pemsel and uphold the spirit of the old English Statute of Elizabeth that originally defined ‘charity’, they are unable to be legally classified as charitable trusts because of their close association with government. Unfortunately, this classification prohibits some charitable donors from making bequests to the Queensland Art Gallery because doing so would affect their own tax status. Recent changes to the Commonwealth Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, however, now allow charitable foundations to make tax deductible donations to eligible recipients without jeopardising their own tax-exempt status. I certainly hope that this positive change will provide an influx of donations to institutions like the Queensland Art Gallery and the State Library to allow them to carry on their valuable work and, hopefully, extend their operations such as the travelling exhibitions carried out by the Art Gallery and GoMA, the Gallery of Modern Art, to give more Queenslanders the opportunity to engage in culture and learn more about the arts, much as we see occur in the United States, where such institutions receive lots of philanthropic donations. It is a culture that we would like to develop in Queensland, but traditionally we have not done so. Therefore, we have to look for other ways to get donations. 72 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 10 Feb 2009

The amendments to the Trusts Act contained in the bill are necessary to ensure the trustees of our public institutions are able to accept such donations. At present, the limitations that I mentioned are reflected in the trust instruments, which means that accepting a donation authorised under federal law but not provided for in state law would constitute a breach of the trust agreement. The nature of a trust precludes the trustees from altering the trust instrument themselves in order to allow charitable funds to donate to public institutions, including health research facilities. By passing the amendments contained in part 5 of this bill we will ensure that our public institutions can take advantage of the new rules to maximise their operating revenue through donations, as I have already mentioned. To this end, the bill outlines the administrative arrangements that must be complied with by the trustees, such as executing a deed confirming the new rules applying to that trust, in order for these changes to the Trusts Act to apply to them. These arrangements will be made known to the ATO in order to ensure the trust benefits from the new trust laws. I think most members would agree that the Queensland Art Gallery and GoMA provide a wonderful service to residents of and visitors to Brisbane. I have had the pleasure—as many members have—of visiting the Art Gallery and the State Library on a number of occasions. We all know them to be world-class but, as with infrastructure, we need to keep financially supporting our arts institutions to keep them world-class and also to encourage philanthropic donations by willing citizens. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (8.09 pm): I rise to participate in the debate on the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2008. I believe this is very strong legislation and very good legislation. In particular, I will refer to the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act and the reversal of the onus of proof. I think it is good news that the government is reversing the onus of proof and putting the onus on the party to demonstrate how it is that they have been able to come by such significant increases in wealth or that they are able to spend significant dollars which appear to be inconsistent with their financial means. The explanatory notes state that the amendments will provide a lower level offence of ‘reckless money laundering’. I was thinking of those words ‘reckless money laundering’ and reflecting on the Four Corners report last night, or maybe it was last week, about some of the reckless money-lending activities of our Australian banks. Unfortunately, it seems to me, Queenslanders and Australians need to be protected from some of the reckless money-lending activities that our banks are involved in because of the pure greed of the banks and their employees to get better returns. Unfortunately we have seen banks lending significant amounts of money where, quite clearly, the applicant for the loan has no financial capacity to repay if it comes to pass that the bank calls in that debt. The reason I refer to that is that I hope the Attorney-General at his next meeting with other Attorneys-General and the federal Attorney-General will discuss the need to change the laws, to strengthen the laws, so that Queenslanders and all Australians can be better protected than they currently are. We certainly need to stop the reckless money lending by our banks. Clearly we are seeing example after example where the banks have lent far beyond what was fair and reasonable because our current legislation does not provide sufficient protection for the mums and dads in Queensland and around Australia. I also reflect on the amendments to the Fair Trading Act in relation to the door-to-door salesmen. I think they are good amendments. I think we need to go even further and further restrict the opportunities for people to knock on doors and push-sell their product. Too many people come into my office in downtown Nambour and give me an example of how a builder or someone else has knocked on their door and they paid them but they never did the work. They say, ‘Peter, I know I’ve been taken for a ride. I feel embarrassed but what do you do when put under pressure?’ We need to take a stronger stand and strengthen this legislation to further restrict the opportunities for door-to-door salesmen. While speaking about uninvited salespeople, what about the uninvited phone calls? Even if you have registered your phone calls as a ‘please don’t ring’, they still ring at half past five or six o’clock or half past six or seven o’clock. I know people are at their wits end and they make some very uncharitable comments to the people who phone. I say good luck to them. They do not deserve to have to put up with those phone calls. I thank the minister for the amendments to the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill. He certainly has my support. But before I resume my seat, I urge him at his next meeting of Attorneys-General to please discuss the need to change our laws in Queensland and Australia as a nation to prevent more of the reckless money lending by our banks to protect ordinary Queenslanders and Australians from themselves. We are seeing too many examples where gullible people have unfortunately been taken advantage of. I think we need to take the lead. The Queensland government has the opportunity to seek significant changes on a national scale. So I urge the Attorney- General, if he has the opportunity, to please pursue that matter at his next meeting. Hon. KG SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland) (8.13 pm), in reply: At the outset, I thank all honourable members for their worthy contributions to the debate on the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2008. In particular, I thank honourable members from both sides of the House for their wholehearted support for the provisions of the bill. 10 Feb 2009 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 73

This bill contains amendments to the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002, the CPC Act; the Security Providers Act, the SP Act; the Fair Trading Act, the FT Act; and the Trusts Act 1973. The amendments contained in the bill deliver important initiatives for Queensland. First, the amendments will complement and strengthen Queensland’s criminal confiscation laws. For example, criminals who move their ill-gotten gains interstate will not be able to profit from that move. They can hide it but we will find it and confiscate it. Second, the amendments also protect consumers from unwanted disruptions to their personal and family time from door-to-door traders visiting after 6 pm during the week. Third, the amendments raise standards in the security industry by requiring firms to maintain membership of professional, accountable industry associations. As interstate experience has shown, this will increase compliance with standards set by the government and increase best practice across the industry. Finally, the amendments clear the way for charitable trusts to make donations to important public facilities and institutions. These charitable trusts are estimated to hold approximately $1 billion in funds able to be donated. The amendments to the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002, which are the outcome of a review by the PCMC, are consistent with the act’s current framework and aim to improve the act’s ability to achieve its objectives, which are primarily aimed at removing financial gain and increasing the financial loss associated with illegal activity. The Security Providers Act 1993 amendments include a requirement for a security firm licence application to provide evidence of membership of an approved industry association. The amendments to the Fair Trading Act remove scope for extensions for door-to- door trading hours, and the Trusts Act amendments will enable state controlled bodies, such as the State Library and the Queensland Museum, to receive donations from ‘prescribed private fund’ donors without compromising the donors’ tax-exempt status. I will now address some of the matters raised by honourable members during the debate. The member for Toowoomba South raised the question of the benefit of association membership and commented on the important role of government in ensuring compliance with the Security Providers Act 1993. Evidence from interstate has shown that approved industry associations commonly adopt and promote a consistent approach to good business practices and ensure member compliance with relevant state and Commonwealth legislation. So being a member means more than just turning up to the annual convention. A recent review of the New South Wales Security Industry Act 1997 showed that the requirements for firms to be members of approved security associations in the New South Wales act contributed to regulation of the industry and greatly assisted in ensuring compliance with good business practices. Research into the security industry has shown that, despite the best regulatory efforts by governments, in some cases current standards are falling short in creating safe and effective business practices. Evidence from other jurisdictions has shown approved industry associations commonly adopt a consistent approach to good business practices and ensure member compliance with relevant state and Commonwealth legislation. The review also noted that the partnership the New South Wales department developed with these associations assisted to coregulate the industry and increased industry integrity. Notwithstanding these benefits, the Bligh government continues to maintain a direct and proactive role in promoting and maintaining high standards in the security industry. For example, the current regulatory requirements include (1) strict probity and identity checking of applicants; (2) daily criminal history checks to make sure licensees have not committed disqualifying offences or been charged with those offences overnight; (3) minimum training requirements including negotiation, communication, protection of property and first aid to make sure security guards have the necessary skills and knowledge; and (4) compliance checks. The combination of the ongoing work of the Office of Fair Trading and these amendments means that we can be doubly sure that we are doing all that is possible to ensure a good night out is a safe night out and that our security providers are of the highest quality. The member for Maryborough asked whether there were loopholes in the restrictions placed on door-to-door traders. The short answer is no. The amendments remove any exemptions from the prohibited hours for door-to-door traders. If companies breach these hours, they will be prosecuted and hopefully fined. The member for Maryborough also asked whether the amendments to the Security Providers Act are bans for a set period. The amendments that require security provider companies to maintain membership of an approved industry association are not bans. Rather, this is a requirement or a precondition that must be met before a security firm licence will be granted. The member for Currumbin raised the issue of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s query about protections against self-incrimination. The act provides that a person is not entitled to refuse to answer questions during a compulsory examination on the basis of privilege against self-incrimination or legal professional privilege. However, answers to these questions or documents produced are not admissible in any future criminal proceedings against the person. That is referred to as a use immunity. 74 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 10 Feb 2009

The intention of the original act was to provide a use immunity but not a derivative use immunity. Accordingly, a person’s answers to questions posed in an examination could be used to gather further evidence which can be used in criminal proceedings or other proceedings against that person. It does follow, then, that the ability to use examination information in a derivative way, such as to locate other evidence about the examinee or a third party, would also encompass the ability to disseminate that information between relevant agencies—for example, between the CMC and the Queensland Police Service. The decision in Meredith v State of Queensland [2006] QCA 465 provides clear direction about the nature and scope of examinations. In this case, the Court of Appeal held that the term ‘affairs’, which is one of the topics upon which a person can be examined, excluded ‘an examination avowedly and entirely unrelated to the finances or property of the examinee’. It held that this line of inquiry was confined to the confiscation of the proceeds of illegal activity rather than establishing a freestanding inquisition not directed at any ultimate purpose. Accordingly, the state cannot examine a person solely about whether the respondent committed serious crimes. The decision of Meredith does leave sufficient scope for an examination to cover questions such as the wealth, liabilities, income and expenditure of a person whose property is restrained. The scope of the examination remains unaffected by the ability of agencies to disseminate information disclosed during these proceedings to other relevant agencies. In all, this bill ensures that Queenslanders can enjoy their privacy at home, that they can enjoy a safe night out in the presence of security personnel and that they can be confident that criminal activity in this state will not be a profitable activity. In conclusion, I again thank all honourable members for their contributions during the debate on this bill and for their support of the bill. I thank departmental officers for the work they have done and staff in my office who have assisted in the development of the bill. I particularly thank the PCMC for the work that it has done and its review, report No. 71, which the honourable member for Toowoomba South referred to in some detail. It was very comprehensive and clearly was the foundation for many of the amendments that we are dealing with tonight. Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4— Mr HORAN (8.26 pm): Clause 4 clarifies the extraterritorial application of the act. I want to ask the minister whether all the other states have agreed to allow the application of this act to the other states. What happens in the case of overseas confiscations? What arrangements are in place to allow Queensland to endeavour to apply this act to an overseas country? For example, would there be an arrangement with Indonesia, or does it have to be taken on a case-by-case basis where you have to make an application or open some form of negotiation with another country? Are all the other states reciprocating and allowing Queensland to do this? And, vice versa, is Queensland doing the same for them? And what about the overseas countries? Mr SHINE: The amendment is not to do with what reciprocal arrangements may or may not be in force with other states or other countries. What it simply endeavours to do is clarify that it is the intention of the Queensland bill to eliminate any concern that a court may not be able to make the necessary orders to apply interstate. So it is just to clarify that power. There is provision, I am advised, for orders to be recognised in other Australian states. We in Australia do recognise corresponding laws pursuant to international arrangements depending on individual countries. It depends on whether we have treaties of that nature, but primarily, as the member would understand, this amendment tonight does not on its face relate to those wider questions that he refers to. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. Clauses 5 to 19, as read, agreed to. Clause 20— Mr HORAN (8.29 pm): This clause is about the use and dissemination of examination information. It is basically saying that the DPP or the CMC may give the examination information to a corresponding entity of the state of Queensland, another state or the Commonwealth. My question is similar to the previous one. Is this arrangement in place with all the other states? Will they in turn provide similar information to Queensland? What other entities in this state would this sort of information be given to? The only one I can think of is the Queensland Police Service. I would just like some detail on that. Is this a reciprocal arrangement? Is it in place and arranged with the other states and the Commonwealth? 10 Feb 2009 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 75

Mr SHINE: In relation to the second question, the bodies to share the information are in fact the QPS and the CMC. In relation to arrangements interstate, there has been an Australia-wide recommendation that such reciprocal arrangements be entered into. What we are seeing tonight in Queensland, I am advised, is the first move Australia-wide to start that process off. We would hope that other jurisdictions will follow suit so that we can see that dissemination of information from the DPP in New South Wales and Victoria and so on to Queensland. In answering whether those arrangements are already set in concrete or already arranged, the answer is no. We hope that this will start the process to get them to come to the party. Clause 20, as read, agreed to. Clauses 21 to 24, as read, agreed to. Clause 25— Mr HORAN (8.33 pm): This clause is dealing with the forfeiture order relating to external serious crime related activity. I am seeking some explanation from the minister about this so I can come to grips with exactly what it means. It says that forfeiture orders relating to external serious crime can only be made if the prescribed respondent lives in Queensland or the property is situated in Queensland. It then goes on to say that the Supreme Court may not make the forfeiture order unless it is satisfied that no action has been taken under a law of the Commonwealth or any place outside Queensland, including outside Australia, against the property of the prescribed respondent that is the subject of the application. Here we are actually talking about external serious crime. I presume it is about crime committed outside of Queensland by someone who lives in Queensland and has property in Queensland? Mr Shine: Either of those two things. Mr HORAN: If it is a crime committed outside of Queensland, is that not the purview of an investigating unit outside of Queensland? Mr SHINE: It is, is the answer. But under this legislation, providing the person involved does live in Queensland or the property is in Queensland—either or both of those—then this will enliven the Queensland court’s jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Mr HORAN: Then the aim of this is to discourage people from doing anything anywhere in Australia and using Queensland as the place where they might buy their block of flats or whatever it is or from using Queensland as their abode? Mr SHINE: To escape. Mr HORAN: I am satisfied with that. It is a bit difficult to comprehend exactly what this is on about. I want to be satisfied about its purpose and what it is doing. I could probably get there by talking about it myself, but the minister’s explanation was good. We are looking at external crime that is not the responsibility of the Queensland Police Service or the CMC to investigate. It is someone else who is investigating it. Probably what this does is deter people from living in the state or having property in the state. I think it gets back to the reciprocal rights that, as we said before, are not yet set in concrete. We want the other states to do the same thing. If someone committed a crime in Queensland and they were a resident of or had property in New South Wales then we would hope that these provisions would be mirrored in legislation over the border. Clause 25, as read, agreed to. Clauses 26 to 30, as read, agreed to. Clause 31— Mr HORAN (8.37 pm): In his speech the member for Bundaberg touched on the value of the relevant person’s property at the end of a period of six years. Is there any particular reason there is a period of time set down? Why is it six years? If we are doing all we can to deter people from having property that is the result of crime then why do we have to have a set period of time, particularly one that is as short as six years? Mr SHINE: As I understand it, the six-year period is a period to enable one to do the maths and to do the assessment of the value of the goods at the beginning of the period as opposed to the value of the goods at the end of that period. It is not a six-year limitation period whereby one cannot chase it after that. It is a simple method of calculating the gain in that period of time. Clause 31, as read, agreed to. Clauses 32 to 55, as read, agreed to. Clause 56— Mr HORAN (8.39 pm): This clause relates to notices to financial institutions. What is the current practice with financial institutions? Do they issue a warrant or is it just simply that they give notice to a financial institution, and I presume that this is often going to be a bank or a building society? On reading the clause, they could just go to a bank or a building society and give written notice that they require the financial institution to advise the police officer or the commission officer whether a particular person holds an account with that financial institution. With regard to banks or building societies or credit unions or whatever it might be, is there any difficulty for them in doing this in terms of privacy acts and so forth? 76 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 10 Feb 2009

As I said, we agree with the bill and I want to ensure that the police and the investigating officers can have reasonable access. If they have a power just to waltz into a building society and say, ‘We’re giving you notice that we require you to tell us whether so and so’s got a bank account here,’ without a little bit of due care and oversight, we just wonder to what extent that could go on. Mr SHINE: In relation to the first question, the position that operates at the moment is either a voluntary cooperation from the financial institution—they are voluntary with no legislative requirement— or, alternatively, the police or the CMC will obtain a search warrant as they would do in normal criminal investigation activity. The honourable member will see looking at proposed new subsection 249B(3) that the police officer or commission officer must not give the notice unless the police officer or commission officer reasonably believes that giving the notice is required. So there is an obligation on the police officer to have a reasonable belief that it is required. So there is a control, if you like, involved in the procedure in proposed subsection (3). I think that may answer the member’s question. In terms of the privacy concerns that the honourable member raised—that is, the privacy obligations that the financial institution or the building society might have to its members—there are immunity provisions contained in the act for financial institutions to protect them in that instance. Mr HORAN: I thank the minister. I think those immunities are under proposed new section 249D in that same clause relating to protection from suits et cetera. I was also going to ask the minister about proposed new section 249C which relates to prohibition on disclosure. I can see the reason for it, but it could be of concern that if someone at the financial institution disclosed to anyone that they intend to give or have given information to a police officer they are subject to a penalty of up to 100 penalty points. I presume that they are told about this. We can see the reason for it in that we do not want them to be able to go to that particular customer if that customer is the one under suspicion of having proceeds of crime lodged at the financial institution, but we would hate to think that some bank johnny having a beer on a Friday night could say, ‘I had a visit from the CMC and they want to know this.’ I can see the reason for it and I have a concern that the staff are made aware of their responsibilities and the seriousness of it. Loose lips sink ships, I suppose. We would not like to see someone innocently get caught and trapped by that. Mr SHINE: I understand the honourable member’s concerns there. I think that there is a general practice in the banking and financial world whereby confidentiality of clients’ affairs is ingrained into people who work in that area. But I think what is relevant here is that the maximum penalty is 100 penalty units which, when compared with the other penalties in the act, is pretty light on. It is light on to reflect the fact that we are dealing here with employees of banks or building societies who are not the principal concern of the design of the act. Clause 56, as read, agreed to. Clause 57— Mr HORAN (8.45 pm): Clause 57 relates to money laundering. I would like the minister to expand a little bit on the difference between knowingly engaging in money laundering and recklessly engaging in money laundering. The old way was that someone was given a bag of money to plonk on dog 8 in race 1 at Moree. Is that reckless? Honourable members interjected. Mr HORAN: That is reckless, because they would be lucky to have eight dogs in the race! It is important to know what the difference is between those two, because it seems to me that ‘recklessly engaging’ could catch some people who maybe unknowingly were asked to do something or they did not ask enough questions. I know they are trying to get to those people who have directly done the crime and who are directly trying to launder the money and they know what they are doing and they know exactly where the money is coming from. Are there people who could get caught up in this? Could there be second-hand dealers or people in markets or those sorts of people who could be caught up in this when someone says, ‘I’ve got something here worth selling,’ although we are probably dealing with major crime and not the minor sort of stuff. We have to be quite sure in doing this that we are getting people who have been knowingly, if you like, involved in assisting these people to profit from their crime. Mr SHINE: Under existing section 250, to prove a charge of money laundering, the prosecution has to prove that the offender dealt with money or other tainted property when the offender knew or ought reasonably to have known that the property was tainted property and was derived from some form of unlawful activity. So the prosecution has to prove knowledge. The new offence included in section 250 of recklessly engaging in money laundering is intended to apply where it cannot be proved that the offender knew the property was tainted but where the circumstances are such that the offender is aware that the property may be tainted property but deals with the property regardless of the risk. It is designed to cater for the differing levels of culpability for those who are deliberately criminal and those who are carelessly or recklessly criminal. The definition of ‘recklessly’ in this new offence has been taken from the definition used in the Commonwealth’s money laundering offences. The definition is also already in use in other Queensland legislation—for example, in section 146ZN of the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001, section 6 of the Research Involving Human Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act 2003, 10 Feb 2009 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 77 section 12A of the Gene Technology Act 2001, and section 306 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000. So because the words used are modelled on the words used in other legislation, one assumes that it either has or will be judicially determined in the near future. Mr HORAN: I am just recollecting the exact words the minister used. In the case of ‘knowingly’, they actually know? So there is no doubt about that? Of course, they know they are up for up to 20 years imprisonment. In terms of the other word ‘recklessly’, did the minister use the term they ‘should have known’? Mr Shine: Ought to have known. Mr HORAN: There was something in that first part of the explanation. They are up for 10 years imprisonment for something that they should have known or were on the fringe of. Could I ask the minister what term he used? Could the minister respond a second time? Mr SHINE: Under existing section 250, to prove a charge of money laundering the prosecution has to prove that the offender knew that the property was tainted. The new offence of recklessly engaging in money laundering is intended to apply where it cannot be proved that the offender knew the property was tainted but the circumstances were such that the offender was aware that the property may be tainted property but dealt with the property regardless of the risk. There is a definition in subclause (2)(a), but I think an example might be buying electrical goods from the boot of a car. You do not know it has been stolen, but you are pretty reckless if you part with money by buying it at half the retail price. That is a pretty reckless attitude to take. Another example would be buying watches in a hotel—things of that nature. I think the term is designed to cover that situation, which is not as bad as knowing that it is stolen but having a reckless regard for whether or not it is stolen. Clause 57, as read, agreed to. Clauses 58 to 67, as read, agreed to. Clause 68— Mr HORAN (8.52 pm): This is a very small part of the bill that seemed to get a lot of attention during the debate. It refers to door-to-door selling and the set times of 9 to 6, Monday to Friday and 9 to 5, Saturday and no door-to-door selling on Sunday or public holidays. Does that type of activity include religions, for example Jehovah’s Witnesses and other missionaries of various churches, who go around door to door quite regularly, particularly in our area? Does this clause include them? Do these people have to be selling something? Someone mentioned charities. A lot of the charity door-to-door selling happens on a Sunday, when the schoolkids and volunteers can do it. Does the clause specifically exclude charities? Does it exclude churches? What about politicians? It is doorknocking season at the moment. It seems to be for some reason or other. I think we would all be happy if the minister could say no to Sunday and Saturday. Mr SHINE: I can assure the honourable member that he can continue what doorknocking he has been doing. I think 1991 was the last time. An honourable member interjected. Mr SHINE: He is a popular member; he does not have to. The answer is that this clause applies to traders in the usual sense, such as people selling telco products. It does not apply to religions and it does not apply to politicians. Hopefully that answers the member’s question. Clause 68, as read, agreed to. Clauses 69 and 70, as read, agreed to. Clause 71— Mr HORAN (8.55 pm): I mentioned my concern about this clause in my speech. This clause relates to the Security Providers Act and states that in order for a firm—and I think this clause also refers to an individual—to have a licence, it is mandatory that that firm or individual be a member of an approved industry association. This is akin to saying, ‘If you want to be an accountant, you have to be in an approved association. If you want to be a dentist, you have to be in the ADA to practise. If you want to be a plumber, you have to be in the amalgamated plumbers association, or whatever it is, in order to practise.’ The minister has said that the provision has been inserted to increase the professionalism of the participants. But the mere fact of being in an association does not mean that your professionalism will necessarily be any higher. That you go to the annual conference, read the monthly magazine or are a member of something does not mean that your modus operandi, or the way in way you train your staff, or the way in which you operate within your licence—whether you are doing a rock show, a pub door, a wedding, a B and S ball; whatever it is you are doing as a security provider—or the standard of your staff and their professional behaviour, will be any better because you happen to be in an association. It may well be that because you are in an association, you read the magazine, you go to the conference and do all of those other things you become more aware of the industry. But the real mechanism that sets the standard for security providers is the system of licensing—what you have to achieve to get your licence and what you have to do in performing your activities within that licence. 78 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 10 Feb 2009

I do not know of any association that does spot checks or that sort of thing. Associations do not really exist for that reason. Generally, associations exist to bring together professions or trades, to lobby on their behalf, to float ideas between each other and so on. Very often people have the opportunity to join one or two different associations. In the security providers industry, there are a number of organisations that people can join. I think there are eight in New South Wales that people can join. I know in New South Wales it is mandatory for people to join one of those organisations. But it is our belief that people should not be forced to join associations. Of themselves, associations should be able to provide a service and attract people in that profession to join them because people believe that they are doing a good job, they want to support them and they want to support their industry. So whilst there may be occasions upon which it might be of some advantage to be in a professional association—it might help a firm that is in it to lift its standards— I believe that standards are reached through the organisation that hands out the licence and which can cancel the licence, and that is the state government. It is the job of the state government to ensure that security providers act responsibly. If something dreadful happens outside a nightclub, someone is belted or bashed, the state government has to take responsibility; it is responsible for licensing, having standards and having a system to ensure that those standards are met, not some organisation that might be based in New South Wales that expands into Queensland and is more about people enjoying the fellowship of the membership and the services that it might offer and so forth. In normal circumstances it is up to firms or individuals as to whether or not they wish to join an association. I used the analogy in my speech of rural organisations such as AgForce. People can decide to join or not to join, but it will not necessarily mean they will be a better farmer if they do join. They might have access to a bit more information, but they also have access to information through the web, the CSIRO, the DPI and going to ag colleges and universities. Being in an association will not make a person a better farmer. One or two other members on this side have spoken about this. We are keen to see how making these firms join an association will lift the professional standards. If members opposite believed that, they would do that for every single trade or profession around the state. They would say they have to join an association so that they can have a higher standard if they believe being in an association leads to a higher standard. It does seem somewhat strange. My concern is that it is a walking away by the government from its responsibility. The government has the prime responsibility, not some association that runs a conference. Unless the Attorney-General can prove to me that these associations have some mandatory system within them to make sure that certain standards are complied with or some mandatory system of checking or inspection, it just means that these firms will have to pay more money to be in these associations. More money means they have to charge a bit more or they have a bit less to give as a bonus to their staff. It means they have to find more money to be in an organisation and it might make absolutely no difference to the level of their performance or the level of their professionalism. We are all looking to see what it is about joining this association that will provide this standard. If something goes wrong with a bouncer outside a club, is the association that that firm is a member of going to be blamed? The blame lays with the systems of oversight or the standards of licensing that should be applied by the government. Mr SHINE: I take the point that the honourable member makes in relation to being a mere passive member of any organisation. I might be a member of the Queensland Racing Club who never goes to the races. That does not make me a person of knowledge in relation to race matters. That is the point that he makes. Mr HORAN: You could be a member of the Law Society and as long as you are passive that does not— Mr SHINE: I do not use the Law Society as an example because if one is a member of the Law Society and wants to have a practising certificate that is where the active regulation by the society, not by the government, comes in. As a member of the Law Society a person has to attend compulsory professional training. A government member: Bouncers are not that smart though. Mr SHINE: Some of their patrons are not either. What we are trying to develop is a partnership between OFT and the industry itself. The industry is keen to work with the Department of Fair Trading because it is aware of the bad name that the industry has had over some very unsavoury circumstances that honourable members are aware of. As I said, the industry currently suffers from poor operating standards which not only make it difficult to retain good staff in the industry but which can directly impact on the safety of members of the public as some firms lower standards in order to undercut each other. Under these proposals individuals will be required to hold membership of an approved association if the individual is a security firm. Where an individual is not a firm they will not be required to be a member of an approved industry association. The focus of these amendments is to improve industry compliance, integrity and workplace relations. Mandatory membership will introduce a number of administrative requirements for approved associations including provision of a code of conduct which 10 Feb 2009 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 79 requires compliance with state and Commonwealth legislation—there will be a code of conduct that members will have to comply with; a requirement to audit and report on membership status; and internal complaint management and dispute resolution systems for members of the public. They are significant requirements of any association they join. It will not be just a question of passive membership: paying a fee and doing nothing else. They will have to comply with the code of conduct and those other matters to which I have referred. All of these things are designed to increase the integrity and compliance of the industry and provide greater protection for the public. One could perhaps draw an analogy with the Law Society. The Law Society is an organisation to which I have belonged for many years. It is part social in a sense, part a union where it represents the interests of the profession and its members, but it has also always performed—somewhat differently now since the Legal Services Commissioner has come on board—a regulatory role as well. What we desire to achieve here is cooperation between the industry and government to get it properly set up and responsible—which is the aim of reputable providers—for providing the best type of regulation. The Office of Fair Trading will not step away from any role that it has under legislation, but the desire is for the industry to work with it in a cooperative manner. Mr HORAN: I will come back to the costs involved. The Attorney-General mentioned that individuals do not have to be a member of an association. If a person is working as a security officer, as an individual they do not have to join but the firm itself must be a part of the association. Could the minister confirm that? Mr SHINE: That is right. Mr HORAN: What will be the approximate cost to be a member? The department must have an idea of what the membership fees are of some of these associations. The associations will have a bit to do. They will have to report on membership. It is probably the sort of industry where people do come and go a bit. People are not bouncers for years and years. There will be a fair bit of work involved in reporting on the ebb and flow of membership. I do not mind the minister obtaining the information. He might need a bit more time. A kindred industry is the electronics industry. People who own electronic shops that sell surveillance equipment have been suddenly slugged with extra costs by this government. Electronic shops sell all sorts of gear. If they happen to sell surveillance equipment so that people can have a video security system mounted on their front gate or their front door, they have to pay an annual licence fee which, off the top of my head, is about $800 to $1,200. In addition, not only the proprietor but anyone who sells the stuff has to do a course that costs another $300 or $400. People in small business are just about tearing their hair out at all the nanny state stuff that is coming through all the time. They have to have a licence for this and do a course for that. Now they have to be a member of an association. No-one seems to be able to run a business, run it well and comply with the licensing arrangements made by the government. I make that point because suddenly people who run an electronics shop in a suburban shopping centre have to find another $1,500 to $2,000 a year to do the business that they have always done. Now in Queensland security providers will have to join some association or other. Can the minister give us an idea of the costs of joining these associations? I am sure the research has been done. Would the Attorney-General explain the actual role of the department or the Office of Fair Trading with regards to security providers? What responsibilities will they be taking on regarding the meeting of professional standards in return for the licences that are charged for and provided? Mr SHINE: Earlier tonight the honourable member was arguing that the government should have the sole role of regulating the industry, providing whatever inspection might be required and so on. We are proposing a cooperative role for industry itself to play in that process. It is a 21st century way of looking at the regulation of business. At the end of the day— Mr Rickuss interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! The member for Lockyer! Mr SHINE: The member for Lockyer can have his input in the usual way in a minute. There has to be an acceptance that, whoever does this, it must be paid for. Neither the taxpayers nor the farmers of the Lockyer should have to pay for the security providers’ regulation. I think it should be paid for by the people in the industry who will benefit from it. It is the simple proposition that user pays. I think we may have accepted that some time— Mr Rickuss interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Lockyer! Mr Rickuss interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Lockyer, that is three times. 80 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation and Other Acts Amendment Bill 10 Feb 2009

Mr SHINE: As I said before, I always look forward to the contributions of the member for Lockyer and I am sure he will be prepared to contribute in the proper way. The honourable member for Toowoomba South made some legitimate comments and asked questions in relation to the costs involved. I am advised that, whilst research undertaken by my department and feedback from industry has suggested that the cost of membership is negligible compared to other business costs such as training, which he mentioned, consideration has been given to this issue. Currently, most associations tier the costs of corporate membership. For example, the Australian Security Industry Association has fees ranging from around $290 for businesses with a turnover of less than $100,000 up to $15,318 for businesses with a turnover of $75 million or more. There are two examples of both extremes in terms of the size of businesses which I have on hand at the moment. Clause 71, as read, agreed to. Clauses 72 and 73, as read, agreed to. Clause 74 (Amendment of s21 (Grounds for suspension, cancellation or refusal to renew))- Mr SHINE (9.15 pm): I move the following amendment— 1 Clause 74 (Amendment of s 21 (Grounds for suspension, cancellation or refusal to renew))— At page 52, line 27, ‘omit,’— omit. This amendment corrects a minor error to clause 74(3). The word ‘omit’ has mistakenly been included in clause 74(3), which is intended to provide for the insertion of new section 21(1A) into the Security Providers Act 1993. The amendment deletes the word ‘omit’ from clause 74(3). Amendment agreed to. Clause 74, as amended, agreed to. Clause 75, as read, agreed to. Clause 76— Mr HORAN (9.16 pm): Can the Attorney-General tell the parliament how many industry associations there are in Queensland? I understand there are eight in New South Wales. No doubt the approval process would not start until this bill has passed through the House. Has any assessment of associations commenced yet? We want to know how many associations there are in Queensland. Are there interstate organisations? Would people be eligible to join a national or interstate association? Mr SHINE: I am unable to give the exact figure. The predominant body, however, is the Australian Security Industry Association, which is a national body. That does not prevent people from forming or joining other industry associations. The member mentioned that there are quite a number in New South Wales. That could be replicated in Queensland eventually. I gather from my departmental advisers that the number in Queensland is few and most members of an association are members of ASIAL, the national body. They could grow a number down the track. Clause 76, as read, agreed to. Clauses 77 to 86, as read, agreed to.

Third Reading Hon. KG SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland) (9.20 pm): I move— That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Question put—That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time. Motion agreed to.

Long Title Hon. KG SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland) (9.20 pm): I move— That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to. 10 Feb 2009 Greenhouse Gas Storage Bill 81

GREENHOUSE GAS STORAGE BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 3 December 2008 (see p. 4064), on motion of Mr Wilson— That the bill be now read a second time. Mr SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (9.20 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the consideration of the Greenhouse Gas Storage Bill 2008. I advise the House that the opposition will not be opposing the passage of this bill. The Greenhouse Gas Storage Bill puts in place a regulatory regime for the storage of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide. The process of greenhouse gas storage involves, firstly, the capture of carbon dioxide and the storage of that greenhouse gas in stable geological formations. I note in the minister’s second reading speech he said that this is an important bill for Queensland’s future. I think that borders on being an understatement: it is a critical bill for Queensland’s future because it is a bill that will enable the development of a clean coal industry. Anyone who doubts the importance of the coal industry to Queensland’s economy has not been watching the developments over the last 12 months. The impact on the Queensland economy of the slowdown in the coal industry because of the world financial crisis has been profound to say the least. Since I have been a member of this House, I have heard members of the government speak in derogatory terms about the mining industry generally and the coal industry in particular. The former Premier used to talk at some length about new emerging industries and try to give the message that somehow or other the coal industry and the mining industry more generally were fading in importance to the Queensland industry. But the coal industry has, like other resource based industries, suffered a cutback over the last six months that I think should reinforce to every Queenslander just how important this industry is. It is certainly an important industry to me and to people who represent electorates in because the effect of the cutback in that industry on our communities is much more direct. But every community in Queensland is affected by the effect that the industry has on the state economy and the state budget. If anyone has any doubt about that, they will see the effect it has very plainly when the Treasurer introduces the next state budget in a few months time. So it is critically important that the future of our coal industry is protected and guaranteed. A significant part of protecting and guaranteeing the future of the coal industry is ensuring that the coal industry can become a clean coal industry and can meet the demands of greenhouse gas capture and storage, and that it can become a clean coal industry not just in Queensland but for the world. The technologies that we develop to capture and store greenhouse gases in Queensland can be an important contribution to other countries as it can enable them to continue to use our Queensland coal and be significant customers of that great resource of which Queensland has an amazing amount. The whole process of firstly capturing and then storing carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas is in its infancy in terms of the technologies that will be necessary to make that a successful regime in the future. But there are a number of important demonstrations or leading-edge technologies that are being incorporated within central Queensland. CS Energy at Callide A Power Station at Biloela is in the process of converting an existing boiler in the old Callide Power Station to oxy-firing, which is a process that enables the carbon dioxide to be captured and subsequently stored. Equally at Stanwell, closer to Rockhampton, the ZeroGen project is similarly involved in capturing and storing carbon dioxide. While those efforts are being made to capture the carbon dioxide, it is important that the government puts in place a regulatory regime that allows for the safe, secure storage of that carbon dioxide in perpetuity. That regime has to be one which first of all ensures as much as it is able that that carbon dioxide is permanently stored. In the minister’s second reading speech he did deal with that issue of ensuring as much as is physically possible that the carbon dioxide is properly stored. But the regulatory regime that is put in place also must ensure that investments can be made by the companies and the financiers whose support will be necessary to enable clean coal to become a reality. The bill before the House puts in place a regime which in many ways is similar to the petroleum legislation. It allows for the exploration permits to be issued to establish the geological formations that are suitable for the storage of carbon dioxide. That will be a very important first step to establish just where the geological formations are. Nobody can expect companies to make the capital investments that are necessary to establish where those geological formations are without some security of knowing that in the long term they will be able to participate in an industry that is aimed at storing the carbon dioxide that is currently emitted into the atmosphere. For that initial investment to take place, this sort of regulatory regime needs to be put into place, and this bill before the House tonight does that. The bill, first of all, enables exploration permits to be issued by the state. It then creates a system very similar to the petroleum legislation to enable tenements to be created to allow holders of those titles to store the carbon dioxide on behalf of the emitters, the producers of the carbon dioxides. There will be some interesting contractual arrangements, I would suggest, as time develops in regard to how those arrangements are put in place and what the value of the service is worth to store the carbon dioxide on 82 Adjournment 10 Feb 2009 behalf of power stations, for example, or other major carbon dioxide producers. Before those commercial arrangements can be entered into or before they can even be considered, there needs to be a regime in place to enable the corporate entities involved to consider those decisions and hopefully find solutions to carbon dioxide storage that, importantly, can ensure that Queensland has a clean coal industry. The legislation covers not just the storage tenements but the pipelines that would be necessary to transport the liquefied carbon dioxide from where it is produced to the areas identified as being suitable for storage. The legislation establishes two separate entities—one which will allow the carrying out of exploration for greenhouse gas storage sites and the second for the storage activities themselves. It allows for a competitive tender process for companies that want to carry out that exploration. In that way, it is very similar to the petroleum legislation and the mineral resources legislation. It also has provisions for compensation for existing title holders over that particular area, and it allows for overlapping titles to be issued if those activities can be carried on together without any conflict. Interestingly, it allows for the refusal of an application on public interest grounds. When this parliament met in Cairns we debated at some considerable length the concept of refusing title applications on public interest grounds. I mention it again tonight because, as I said in that debate, I believe it is important that the minister—whoever the minister may be—should always be able to act in the public interest and ensure that the titles that are issued and the regimes that are administered are in the public interest. There will be a need for ongoing monitoring of these storage sites, and this legislation allows for those storage sites to revert to the ownership of the state once they reach their capacity in terms of storage. It provides for a series of processes that will ensure that the companies that are involved meet their obligations in relation to the longevity of those storage sites. In that way, too, it is very similar to the Mineral Resources Act and the lease surrender terms that are included in that act and that have been tested over a long period of time. The bill before the House is certainly a long one. It is a document that is five or six centimetres thick. It contains a very great number of clauses which members of the House will be relieved to hear I do not intend to deal with to any great degree, because it does mirror the provisions of the Petroleum Act and, to a lesser extent, the provisions of the Mineral Resources Act. I believe both of those pieces of legislation have been extensively debated and extensively tested in operation within the state. While it is a very large bill in terms of its length and its physical presentation, I do not believe it presents any great degree of contention to the parliament and I do not intend to labour its consideration tonight. I thank the minister for the briefing that he provided to us and I certainly support the passage of the legislation through the parliament. Debate, on motion of Mr Seeney, adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (9.34 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Noosa Electorate, Fish Abnormalities Mr ELMES (Noosa—LNP) (9.34 pm): I would like to bring to the attention of the House the issues surrounding the two-headed fish controversy currently being played out in my electorate. It surrounds the use of the chemical carbendazim, which occurs in many forms. It is a chemical in its own right and a derivative of many other chemicals widely used throughout our agricultural industries. There have been deformities and deaths of millions of fish larvae taken from the Noosa River and spawned at the Sunland Freshwater Fish Hatchery. Carbendazim has been linked to these abnormalities. If this link is proven, then this incident is unprecedented. I am concerned that this issue is not being dealt with with the degree of urgency that should be displayed by the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. What is of even greater concern is the fact that, in five out of the nine households bordering the fish hatchery and the macadamia nut farm, there appears to be more than the normal incidence of cancer cases amongst residents. I have read research material on carbendazim and have learned how it is applied in the macadamia industry. In the case of Sunland Freshwater Fish Hatchery, there is a macadamia nut farm on three sides of the property, very close to both the hatchery and the owner’s home. Fish, particularly fingerlings, are at the very beginning of the food chain. In my research I have read of examples from other countries where similar mutations have occurred. The hatchery is on top of a rise and the winds are variable. While I am concerned about the viability of the fish hatchery and macadamia farm, I am more concerned about the danger to local residents and workers. Spray residue will settle on the skin. The residue will also settle on the roofs of homes and with rain will drain into water tanks, with the water then being used for washing and for 10 Feb 2009 Adjournment 83 drinking. In a letter to me dated 2 December the minister said that his department had been testing in and around this property for two years. I have called publicly, and I do so again now, for the results of those tests to be released. The urgency here revolves around the health of local residents and the viability of both the fish hatchery and the macadamia farm, and public concerns about chemical run-off into Cooloothin Creek, which feeds directly into the Noosa River. I note that the minister has formed a new task force to look at this specific problem. The task force includes members of the macadamia industry as well as Dr Matt Landos, who has spent some considerable time specifically looking at the issues surrounding the Sunland Freshwater Fish Hatchery. As I have said, testing for over two years and a new task force suggests to me that the government has not in the past but should now provide greater resources so that this investigation can be brought to a speedy conclusion and so that all the people of the local area can get on with their lives and livelihoods. For my part, I will continue my investigations until such as time as there is a satisfactory and healthy outcome.

Health System Ms BARRY (Aspley—ALP) (9.37 pm): It comes as no surprise that as politicians we are acutely aware of the priority of accessing quality healthcare services afforded to our constituencies. Having access to a health system that is responsive to each person when they or theirs are sick and scared is a basic right. It should also come as no surprise that, when health is used as a political football, it frustrates each and every one of us in every circumstance. Confidence in our health services is critical in ensuring that people, firstly, seek help early and then have realistic expectations as to the outcomes of the care that they will receive. Because health care is about people and because of the frailty of the human body, there will always be those whom the health system cannot mend. Such circumstances too often become the fodder of sensationalist journalism, with little attention to the grieving process and the personal nature of the stories that are used. But for the majority of Queenslanders our healthcare system works wonders. Time and time again I note that the strongest defenders of our healthcare system, and in particular our public hospital system, are those who are in need of its services. Our family recently spent a lot of time at the Princess Alexandra Hospital and the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital. On behalf of my family, I would like to thank those amazing men and women in our public health system and the Queensland Ambulance Service for the care of my father, Stan, during his stay. Dad underwent major cardiac surgery at the Princess Alexandra Hospital under Dr Shah and spent time in wards 3C, the ICU unit and the coronary care unit of 3E. We would particularly like to pay tribute to the nursing, medical, administration, allied health and operational staff of those units who, through their compassion and professionalism, made his time in hospital and our anxious wait that much easier. To my friend and incredible nurse leader, the executive director of nursing at the Princess Alexandra, Veronica Casey, I say that the fact that the PA Hospital is acknowledged as a magnet hospital for nursing services is an international acknowledgement of her and her staff’s hard work and is very well deserved. To the staff of the Queensland Ambulance Service and the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital emergency department and ward 7b south: another huge thanks for their care of my father during his difficulties post operatively. Finally, to our friends, family and colleagues: a big thankyou for all of your thoughts and wishes. Unfortunately, people were advised incorrectly at a large Brisbane north community event that my father had passed away. It caused great consternation. My dad was a well-known Brisbane north police officer. We had a lot of condolences expressed to us. I am pleased to advise all those who asked about him that my father is well and truly alive thanks to the public health system and around-the-clock care from my family, our nursing friends and, most importantly, my mum, Val. In the great spirit of my father, he would say, ‘Not many people get the chance to hear so many nice things said about them after they have supposedly died.’ Once again, thank you to all those who have helped us through this time.

Cunningham Electorate, Schools; Victorian Bushfires and North Queensland Floods Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—LNP) (9.40 pm): I congratulate the father of the member for Aspley on surviving his obituary. For a geographically relatively small electorate, my electorate has a large number of one-, two- and three-teacher schools. They do a fantastic job of educating young Queenslanders in a really caring and genuinely good learning environment. We have had a lot of threats to some of those small schools in recent times, as we always do. The Bongeen State School was forced to close a couple of years ago. The Ramsay State School was under investigation for mothballing for this current school year, but thankfully that did not happen. I again extend my thanks to the education minister for keeping the Ramsay State School open. 84 Adjournment 10 Feb 2009

There have been changes in teacher numbers. I currently have two schools that have had very small changes in student enrolments. Mount Tyson State School and Nobby State School are under threat of losing a schoolteacher. Mount Tyson State School has gone from 53 to 52 students, which means that they are due to lose one teacher. Nobby State School has gone down to 24 students, which means that they are to go back to one teacher. I urge the education minister—and I have written to him about these two schools—to continue the level of staffing for those two schools. The criteria for changing teacher allocations in small schools has not changed for some decades. We have seen the introduction of the prep year. We now have eight years of schooling in small schools. One, two or three teachers are expected to deliver two different curricula in those schools, in most cases with special-needs students. It is a very difficult situation. I would urge the minister to review the way that teachers are allocated to those small schools. Both of those schools do a fantastic job. I have been a regular visitor to both of them. I would hope that the minister will respond in a positive way. When I put my name down to speak in the adjournment debate tonight it was about those schools that I wanted to speak. But I do not think anyone in this House or anyone in Australia would be expected not to turn their minds to the occurrences in Victoria and in north Queensland. In the last week or two we have seen the flooding in north Queensland. Many of us have grown up with flooding—the smell and the occurrence of flooding—and would consider that what has happened in north Queensland is extraordinary. Then we have seen what has happened in Victoria. I have heard the way the members of parliament down there have spoken and cared for their communities. All of our thoughts and best wishes go to all of the people in Victoria at this time.

Victorian Bushfires and North Queensland Floods; Volunteers

Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (9.43 pm): I appreciate the opportunity to put on record tonight my feelings of utter sorrow in the face of two great disasters that are playing out at opposite ends of this nation. In north Queensland the nightmare goes on for many who have not seen the sun for weeks and are marooned within their homes and relying on food and medicine drops for survival. I am pleased that today the water levels in Ingham have begun to drop, but I also note that Cloncurry, in Deputy Speaker Kiernan’s electorate, had another drenching in the past 24 hours. So for them and others in so many places across the north and north-west the difficulties continue. I know, though, that there are none in these areas who are not turning their thoughts today to the people of Victoria who are enduring what has been described as a hell on earth. Our hearts break with every image of another community destroyed and with every report of more lives confirmed as lost. There really are no words to express the deep sorrow of this nation as we sit looking on at the nightmare unfolding on our TV screens. If we are looking for something to cling to, perhaps it comes in the form of our gratitude and admiration for the self-sacrifice of the many volunteers who have put aside their own fears and needs to serve their communities as best they can. In Queensland, volunteers in the SES are among those who are instrumental in the wellbeing of flood victims. Those angels in orange are amazing men and women who leave their own families to go out to answer the community’s call for assistance. As members may be aware, this Sunday, 15 February, marks the 12-month anniversary of the Mackay floods in which hundreds of homes were inundated by an extraordinary rain event the likes of which had not been experienced in recorded times. In Mackay, as in the north, SES volunteers stepped up to the mark and were undoubtedly responsible for saving lives and property. In Victoria, volunteers from the Country Fire Authority have been confronting the unimaginable in the name of service to their community. Red Cross volunteers are often the next line of defence within these distressed communities, organising and distributing aid and doing what can be done to reunite families and comfort the distressed. If ever there was a week in our history that demonstrated the value of volunteering, this would be it. But we should not diminish the work of ordinary volunteers in ordinary communities every day. These wonderful, generous people are the glue that holds communities together and they embody the spirit that becomes so visible in times of disaster. That is why I have decided to make 2009 my year of the volunteer in my electorate of Whitsunday. I have established a portal on my web site, www.janjarratt.com, which I am dedicating to promoting volunteering by matching potential volunteers to an organisation that suits their needs. It is a sort of dating club for volunteers. I have written to local community groups to ask them to be involved and the response so far has been overwhelming. I will also be inviting local not-for-profit groups to a special volunteer information and training day where the highlight will be the recognition of outstanding community volunteers. I place my thanks and gratitude for volunteers wherever they live firmly on the record. 10 Feb 2009 Adjournment 85

CSIRO Research Centre, Long Pocket Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—GRN) (9.46 pm): I rise in the House tonight to put on the record my serious concerns about plans by the federal Labor government to sell the 7.2 hectare CSIRO research centre at Long Pocket, Indooroopilly. There is simply not enough riverfront land remaining in Brisbane that is accessible to the community and is in community hands. It is important that we not let the federal government present this sale as a fait accompli. It is important that the community maintains some control over riverfront land as Brisbane develops. I believe in five, 10 and 15 years time people will look back at any decision to sell the CSIRO facility in Long Pocket and believe it to have been incredibly short-sighted. Quite simply, the federal government should not allow this sale to proceed. I will be working with the local community to stop this sale and keep this site in community hands. The site in particular has some significant environmental value locally. It is part of an important wildlife corridor and is near a large flying fox colony in Long Pocket. I will be working with the local community, in particular the Long Pocket residents association, on this. I worked closely with them when we stopped the natural sciences precinct from proceeding when it was bad for the community. I worked closely with the Long Pocket residents association when we stopped Mirvac inappropriately developing a large condominium complex at a site that was simply not served and will never be served by public transport. I note, however, that while Labor proposes to sell the site—and I believe it should not be sold— the LNP candidate for Indooroopilly, Scott Emerson, is having two bob each way. He states on his web site that he wants the sale to be frozen. He wants the federal government to take its time and chat with the community about this outrageous proposal as if in some way talking to community about an outrage is going to make the community feel less outraged. I had a look at Mr Emerson’s employer’s web site—Crook Publicity. Scott Emerson is a polished PR professional. He works for Crook Publicity. I note on its client list that it cites, among other developers, Devine. I want to make sure that companies like Devine do not get an opportunity to bid on this site. One cannot serve two masters. One cannot serve the development industry and serve the community. One cannot serve business interests that have an interest in making money out of doing things that are not in interests of the community and at the same time tell the community one is looking out for them. I am 100 per cent committed to looking after my community; Labor is not committed because it wants to sell this site, and neither is Mr Emerson.

Mudgeeraba Interchange Mrs REILLY (Mudgeeraba—ALP) (9.49 pm): Relief is on the horizon for motorists who drive through two congestion hot spots on the Pacific Motorway, with construction starting this week on the Mudgeeraba interchange upgrade and approval given late last year for the six-laning of the from Nerang to Worongary. These two projects have been made possible by joint state and federal funding totalling $180 million—part of the $900 million package for the M1 interchanges and upgrades—and I welcomed the Premier, Anna Bligh, and the federal member for Forde, Brett Raguse, to Nielsons Road overpass late last year to make these announcements. Abigroup contractors moved on site yesterday in Mudgeeraba to begin constructing a second overpass bridge to Robina, installing traffic signals on the western side of the overpass to enable the movement of vehicles heading north from Robina without entering the Mudgeeraba roundabout, and widening the roundabout on the Mudgeeraba side to two lanes. More than 18,000 vehicles use the Mudgeeraba interchange every day, including me. While we are going to experience some delays during construction, it will be worth it for the end result. Residents will be very pleased to know that, as a result of community consultation and their input on the design, the RSL memorial and the Mudgeeraba tennis courts and the adjacent Lions Park will remain untouched. These works will complement future works which will be done in the second stage on this interchange when the M1 upgrade is completed to eight lanes. But the first priority utilising existing joint funding of the $900 million was to address the heavy congestion experienced every peak hour between Nerang at exit 73 and Worongary at exit 77. That is why I lobbied since early last year for the reallocation of some of those funds from interchange improvements to be used to upgrade the M1 to six lanes in the busiest section of highway which takes 107,000 vehicles a day. Work is expected to start on the six-laning project in the first half of this year and on the Reedy Creek-Varsity Lakes interchange at exit 85 by the middle of the year. This is a lot of road construction within a fairly short distance which will certainly affect a lot of the same motorists. But with the Nielsons Road interchange work close to completion, that relief is on the way. So I urge drivers to be patient and careful during the next few months and maybe give themselves more time to reach their destination until the roadworks are complete. 86 Adjournment 10 Feb 2009

Over the next 12 to 18 months more design work will also be done on the Worongary interchange and the Robina Parkway-Somerset Drive interchange. That is not the end of the story though. When it comes to upgrading the M1, I am still lobbying for further funds to be allocated by both state and federal governments for the full upgrade of the M1 to eight lanes. My submission to the Building Australia infrastructure fund was one of 600 received from across Australia. While it was not successful this time, I know that it is now in front of the committee and the federal minister for infrastructure, Anthony Albanese, and I will be on their case pushing for that roadwork because it is vital for the economic, environmental and social health of the Gold Coast. Tweed River Entrance Sand Bypassing Project Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—LNP) (9.52 pm): Since the Tweed River sand bypass project became fully operational in 2001, almost 10 million cubic metres of sand have been pumped or dredged from the Tweed River and the nearby outlet. This agreement between the Queensland and New South Wales state governments costs $9.2 million per year to run. Costs are currently shared between the states, with Queensland and the Gold Coast City Council paying for half and the remaining 50 per cent coming from New South Wales. Well before I was elected to parliament in 2004 I was raising the serious safety and environmental issues resulting from this project. On numerous occasions I have called for better management of the project, some flexibility in the pumping grid area, and proper monitoring and reviews. According to the Surfrider Foundation, problems with this project are smothering and significant degradation of Kirra Reef, loss of world-famous Kirra Point and other surfing breaks, increase of safety risks in patrolled bathing areas, and loss of business and tourism due to loss of beach amenity. The aim of this sand bypass system was twofold—to establish and maintain a safe, navigable entrance to the Tweed River and to provide a continuing supply of sand to nourish southern Gold Coast beaches and maintain beach amenity. Geoff Provest, the member for Tweed, and I joined champion surfer Mick Fanning and others to lobby for an audit of the sand bypass over two years ago, but still nothing. Recently I read comprehensive environmental reports from 1994, 1995 and 1997 conducted by the Queensland and New South Wales governments relating to this 24- to 25-year project that made distinct recommendations to preserve Kirra Reef. The reports noted that the high conservation value of Kirra Reef and its associated flora and fauna warrants careful design and implementation of measures to protect the habitat. The principal concern regarding Kirra Reef is the proximity of sand dumping and the possibility of smothering the habitat, and yet this was allowed to happen. Last week I lodged a request under the Freedom of Information Act seeking all contracts relating to the TRESBP project, including environmental management plans. Ongoing secrecy around this project smacks of a cover-up. If the Bligh government has nothing to hide, then why is there no accountability and no transparency? The council has been waiting since July 2007 for a reply from the EPA about the feasibility of it dumping dredge soil somewhere other than in the bay and a supplementary outlet. But until we see what is in the contract, we do not know if these key recommendations have been breached or if they are included at all. It is disgraceful that the Queensland and New South Wales governments have sat on their hands for eight years while almost 10 million cubic metres of sand has covered our reef and turned Kirra Beach into a desert. This is a problem of their own making through poor management and lack of community consultation. I congratulate Kirra Point Committee and Surfrider for their outstanding efforts, especially with the Australia Day paddle-out. Relevant ministers from Queensland and New South Wales should have got together long before now. The damage has already occurred and corrective action must be taken immediately to rescue the reef and review the sand pumping and dredging project. You cannot bury your heads in the sand any longer. This makes a mockery of Labor’s environmental credentials. Shame on you! You have turned on the pump and you have turned away. Gaven Electorate Mr GRAY (Gaven—ALP) (9.55 pm): When I rose in this place some 2½ years ago to speak for the first time, I mentioned the difficulty for government in dealing with the large growth areas throughout the Gold Coast city and south-east Queensland, with some 1,800 people coming to that area per week. The electorate of Gaven has certainly absorbed a lot of that growth. The electorate at that time had some 31,000 electors in it rather than the 27,000 that was the quota for the area. It grew to 38,100 and has been redistributed along with the electorate of Albert and those others in the Gold Coast city to create the new seat of Coomera, giving the Gold Coast some 10 seats in that area. The Bligh government is to be congratulated on the excellence of the delivery of services that have occurred during that 2½-year period. We have seen Park Lake State School built. We have seen the Queensland Transport customer service centre established at Helensvale, serving over 450 customers a day. We have seen stage 5 of the Pacific Pines State High School development worth $2.1 million. We have opened the Pacific Pines police beat. We then turned our attention to dealing with road noise from the M1 which has been of considerable concern for the government and the government has handled it well, with over 240 homes currently receiving noise treatments, and that program is ongoing. 10 Feb 2009 Adjournment 87

We have air-conditioned Nerang State School as a result of the M1 and the noise problems associated with it. Of course we have also bought the land for the fire station at Nerang and committed some $3.7 million over two financial years to build it. We have cleared the site and we are ready for building. The Nerang Ambulance Station is now a 24-hour station and the 25 staff members who serve there are undertaking their shifts as we speak. The Nielsons Road interchange—another promise at that time—is being delivered. The Bligh government has delivered and continues to deliver in the growth areas on the Gold Coast, particularly in the seat of Gaven, and I am eternally thankful for that. Bundaberg Base Hospital Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—LNP) (9.58 pm): Today patients and staff of the Bundaberg Base Hospital are safer than they were two weeks ago, because three very courageous Queensland Health workers have blown the whistle regarding very serious allegations of patient and public servant safety and official misconduct at the Bundaberg Base Hospital. The health minister initially publicly stated that these allegations were investigated a year ago and were found to be unsustained and therefore required no further investigation. He was forced to backflip after a nurse whistleblower during our meeting with the director-general of Health stated that she had never been officially interviewed by any health department employee regarding her approximately 100 official complaints. At the same meeting the director-general of Health stated to those present that he had never heard of those allegations before. In doing so, he directly contradicted his minister and supported the nurse’s claim that she had never been interviewed. This is proof that the health department’s investigative Ethical Standards Unit’s abilities are grossly substandard, and yet the CMC has used its discretionary powers again under section 34 of the act to refer serious allegations of official misconduct back to the government department where the alleged misconduct took place. While I acknowledge that the CMC has every right under section 34(a) to work cooperatively with government departments and refer investigations to any government department for internal investigation, I also remind the parliament that the overriding responsibility of the CMC under section 34(d) is to promote public confidence in the way in which those allegations are being dealt with. Instead of promoting public confidence, the CMC is severely undermining public confidence by referring these allegations to the health department for internal investigation. It is clearly—and the AMA’s Dr Chris Davies supports my claim—a case of Caesar judging Caesar. Mr Needham, by referring these recent Bundaberg health allegations to the Ethical Standards Unit of Queensland Health, shows that he has made a serious error in three areas: given the sorry public history, the Ethical Standards Unit does not have the capacity or will to effectively deal with this misconduct; the misconduct is serious, prevalent and systemic; and, lastly, public confidence in the Queensland health system is at an all-time low. Nothing short of the CMC taking direct control of the investigation will restore public and Health staff confidence. If the CMC is incapable through lack of resources to properly investigate these matters, then the only solution is the establishment of a royal commission which will have the power to protect current and future Health whistleblowers uncover the truth, hold the guilty accountable and recommend a course of desperately needed reform. We simply cannot have another case of Queensland Health investigating itself. Victorian Bushfires and North Queensland Floods; Rozis, Ms R Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (10.00 pm): Firstly, let me begin by passing on my condolences to the families who have lost loved ones in the Victorian bushfires and Queensland floods. There really is a sense of sadness, a feeling of being glum that has come over all of us and it can be felt throughout our communities. Those who have been affected by these tragic events are in our hearts and prayers. The Springwood ALP branch is also grieving, for it has lost one of its members. Born in Martley, Worcester, England on 4 August 1946, the second of three daughters to Eleftherios and Francis Michael, Margaretta—or Rita as she was known to all—departed this life on 23 December 2008, aged 62 years. At her all-girls school, Rita loved to play cricket and was regarded as a bit of a tomboy—a description that suited her all her life. After leaving school at age 15, Rita took a job in the office of Cadbury’s in Birmingham. Apparently, she was known as the world’s worst chocolate taster because, although she was not supposed to be anywhere near the assembly line, she managed to stray down there quite frequently and sample every product. For those of us who knew Rita, that does not come as any surprise for we know that Rita was never daunted by the rules. Rita also spoke her mind and patience was never one of her virtues. It is well known to us that in the United Kingdom, at the age of 25, Rita was heard to say, ‘If this fellow gets elected, I am going to Australia!’ He was elected and she did migrate to Australia in 1971. In 1973, Rita met Tony Rozis on a bus on a skiing holiday in the Snowy Mountains. They were attracted to each other immediately and Rita announced to her flatmate, ‘He’ll do me!’ Rita and Tony were married in 1977 after the bank manager told them that they had to be married to obtain a home loan. Their first child, Ellen, was born in 1979 and in 1982 their son, Alex, was born. 88 Attendance 10 Feb 2009

Rita was very proud of her family. She was very protective of them. Their fights were her fights. She was also very passionate about workers’ rights. Rita was very proud of Tony and his work with Energex and she would fiercely defend their work to anyone who had a complaint. She always wanted a better deal for the workers. Rita was extremely proud of her two children. Anyone and everyone she met were all told ‘My Ellen, she’s doctor’ and she would tell us how wonderful Alex was with IT and at fixing things. Rita and her family settled in Shailer Park in 1987. She became involved in the P&C at Kimberley Park State School. She was very vocal when it came to local issues and she would always take up the fight. Rita was always interested in politics and joined the Springwood branch of the , where she was an active and vocal member, serving as treasurer for 10 years. Rita loved participating in Labour Day marches and preparing for elections—recruiting volunteers and handing out how-to-vote cards. As soon as the last election was called, Rita was out hammering ‘Barbara Stone for Springwood’ signs all over the electorate. I think it was the tomboy coming out in her. This is an election year and when it is called the Springwood ALP branch will really notice that they are missing a ‘branchy’. To her family, we say thank you for sharing her with us. We share in your grief and you are in our thoughts and prayers. Rita was always offering assistance to family and friends. She did all this unconditionally. When people wanted to repay her, she would respond with the words, ‘Just say “Thank you, Rita.”’ I simply say, ‘Thank you Rita. May you rest in peace.’ Question put—That the House do now adjourn. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 10.04 pm.

ATTENDANCE Attwood, Barry, Bligh, Bombolas, Choi, Copeland, Cripps, Croft, Cunningham, Darling, Dempsey, Dickson, Elmes, English, Fenlon, Finn, Flegg, Foley, Fraser, Gibson, Grace, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hobbs, Hoolihan, Hopper, Horan, Jarratt, Johnson, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Knuth, Langbroek, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee Long, Lee, Lingard, Lucas, McArdle, McNamara, Male, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nicholls, Nolan, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Pratt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, 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