PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

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

Subject FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT Page Thursday, 27 October 2011

SPEAKER’S RULING ...... 3473 Alleged Deliberate Misleading of the House by the Minister for Main Roads and the Minister for Education ...... 3473 PETITIONS ...... 3474 MINISTERIAL PAPERS ...... 3474 Members’ Daily Travelling Allowance Claims; Travel Benefits for Former Members of the Legislative Assembly ...... 3474 Tabled paper: Daily travelling allowance claims by members of the Legislative Assembly— Annual Report 2010-11...... 3474 Tabled paper: Travel benefits afforded former members of the Legislative Assembly— Annual Report 2010-11...... 3474 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 3475 Queensland Economy ...... 3475 Tabled paper: Annual Economic Report on the Queensland economy—year ended 30 June 2011...... 3475 Tabled paper: 2010-11 Report on State Finances of the Queensland Government—30 June 2011 (Incorporating the Outcomes Report and the AASB 1049 Financial Statements)...... 3475 Queensland Economy ...... 3475 Advance Cairns ...... 3476 Youth Justice ...... 3476 Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian ...... 3477 Computers in Schools ...... 3477 Police Service, Resources ...... 3478 Bureau of Meteorology ...... 3478 Wild Rivers ...... 3479 Integrity Reforms ...... 3479 COMMITTEE OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ...... 3480 Portfolio Committee, Reporting Date ...... 3480 ABSENCE OF MEMBER ...... 3480 COMMITTEE OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ...... 3480 Report ...... 3480 Tabled paper: Committee of the Legislative Assembly: Report No. 3—Annual Report 2010-11...... 3480

J MICKEL N J LAURIE L J OSMOND SPEAKER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER Table of Contents — Thursday, 27 October 2011

ETHICS COMMITTEE ...... 3480 Report ...... 3480 Tabled paper: Ethics Committee: Report No. 118—Matter of privilege referred by the Speaker on 26 May 2011 relating to alleged insufficient care being taken by a member when tabling documents and on 10 June 2011 relating to an alleged breach of the sub judice rule by a member when tabling documents, and matter of privilege referred by the Speaker on 18 August 2011 relating to an alleged contempt of impugning the Assembly’s ethics processes and by prejudging an inquiry outcome impugning the Ethics Committee’s processes and deliberations...... 3480 INDUSTRY, EDUCATION, TRAINING AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE ...... 3481 Report ...... 3481 Tabled paper: Industry, Education, Training and Industrial Relations Committee: Report No. 2— Annual Report 2010-11...... 3481 Tabled paper: Industry, Education, Training and Industrial Relations Committee: Report No. 3— Quarterly report on subordinate legislation tabled between 1 July 2011 and 30 September 2011...... 3481 COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ...... 3481 Report ...... 3481 Tabled paper: Community Affairs Committee: Report No. 5—Report on subordinate legislation tabled between 2 August 2011 and 23 August 2011...... 3481 SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 3481 School Group Tours ...... 3481 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 3481 The Greens, Policies ...... 3481 The Greens, Preferences ...... 3482 Skills ...... 3483 Construction Industry ...... 3484 Sunshine Coast, Economic Development ...... 3484 Police Service, Resources ...... 3485 Bruce Highway, Upgrade ...... 3486 Police Service, Resources ...... 3486 Schoolteachers ...... 3487 Queensland Health, Payroll System ...... 3487 Tabled paper: Copy of email, dated 22 June 2011, from Ms Natalie MacDonald at Public Works to Mr Tony O’Connell at Health, titled ‘PFP meeting this afternoon’...... 3487 Electoral Act ...... 3488 Water ...... 3489 Tobacco ...... 3490 Tabled paper: Electoral Commission of Queensland, Disclosure return—Donor to registered political party in the name of British American Tobacco Australia Ltd...... 3490 Tourism Queensland, Board ...... 3490 Manufactured Homes in Residential Parks ...... 3491 Gladstone Electorate, Health Services ...... 3492 BUILDING BOOST GRANT BILL ...... 3492 Second Reading ...... 3492 Tabled paper: Finance and Administration Committee: Report No. 4—Building Boost Grant Bill 2011— Government Response, and attachment titled ‘Guidelines for ex gratia assistance for related party transactions’...... 3492 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...... 3510 Child Care, Funding ...... 3510 Operation Cleanup, Graduation ...... 3510 The Greens, Preferences ...... 3511 Trung Vuong Vietnamese Language School ...... 3511 Child Safety ...... 3512 MND and Me Foundation ...... 3512 Springbrook, Rainforest Restoration ...... 3512 Vitamin Me Campaign; Kedron Caravans ...... 3513 Juvenile Justice ...... 3513 Morayfield Electorate, Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund ...... 3514 CSG Industry; Maternity Services ...... 3514 Military Brotherhood, Military Motorcycle Club ...... 3515 Mount Warren Park Dental Clinic ...... 3515 Your Inspiration at Home ...... 3515 Gold Coast Turf Club Board ...... 3516 Manufactured Homes, Residential Parks ...... 3516 Turf Industry ...... 3517 Bulimba Electorate, Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund ...... 3517 Turf Industry ...... 3518 Table of Contents — Thursday, 27 October 2011

Judith Wright Centre; National Bandanna Day ...... 3518 Carbon Tax ...... 3518 Emergency Services, Remembrance Day ...... 3519 Uganda, Child Sacrifice ...... 3519 Tabled paper: Report by Jubilee Campaign and Kyampisi Childcare Ministries titled ‘Child Sacrifice in Uganda’...... 3520 Newman, Mr C ...... 3520 Queensland Health, Ambulance Ramping ...... 3520 Chatsworth Electorate, Bus Services ...... 3521 Hervey Bay Electorate, Building Standards ...... 3521 Bundamba Electorate, Schools ...... 3521 Williams, Mr K ...... 3522 Ambulance Service, Local Ambulance Committees ...... 3522 Southern Moreton Bay Islands; Victoria Point State High School, School Leaders ...... 3523 Kallangur Electorate, Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Program ...... 3523 Queensland Government, Infrastructure ...... 3523 Tabled paper: Article, dated 13 January 2009, from goldcoast.com.au, titled ‘Tugun desalination rust stand-off’...... 3524 Sunnybank Electorate, Student Accommodation ...... 3524 Queensland Health, Patient Transfers ...... 3524 Papua New Guinea Corrective Services Leadership Program ...... 3525 Rural Fire Service ...... 3525 Everton Electorate, Transport ...... 3525 Public Transport ...... 3526 Social Housing Garden Awards; Carers Week ...... 3526 Gladstone Region, Fish Health ...... 3527 Queensland Health, Payroll System ...... 3527 SkillsTech Queensland ...... 3527 Peninsula Developmental Road ...... 3528 Civil Partnerships ...... 3528 MINISTERIAL PAPER ...... 3529 Electoral Commission of Queensland ...... 3529 Tabled paper: Electoral Commission of Queensland—Annual Report 2010-11...... 3529 BUILDING BOOST GRANT BILL ...... 3529 Second Reading ...... 3529 Consideration in Detail ...... 3535 Clauses 1 to 135— ...... 3535 Tabled paper: Building Boost Grant Bill, explanatory notes for Hon. Andrew Fraser’s amendments...... 3538 Clauses 1 to 135, as amended, agreed to...... 3538 Schedules 1 and 2, as read, agreed to...... 3538 Third Reading ...... 3538 Long Title ...... 3538 SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT ...... 3538 ADJOURNMENT ...... 3538 Fraser Island, Fire ...... 3538 Girl Guides ...... 3539 Mystic Sands, Flying Foxes ...... 3539 Breast Cancer ...... 3540 Bald Hills State School ...... 3540 Teralba Park, Green Army ...... 3541 PRIVILEGE ...... 3542 Ethics Committee, Report ...... 3542 ADJOURNMENT ...... 3542 Rural Fire Service ...... 3542 Education Reform ...... 3542 Urangan Boat Harbour ...... 3543 Beenleigh-Beaudesert and Tallagandra Roads, Upgrade ...... 3543 ATTENDANCE ...... 3544 27 Oct 2011 Legislative Assembly 3473 THURSDAY, 27 OCTOBER 2011

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

SPEAKER’S RULING

Alleged Deliberate Misleading of the House by the Minister for Main Roads and the Minister for Education Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have now considered two complaints that members have deliberately misled the House. I have decided to refer both matters to the Ethics Committee, namely: the Leader of the Opposition’s complaint against the Minister for Main Roads, and the member for Kawana’s complaint against the Minister for Education. I emphasise that my decision to refer both complaints to the Ethics Committee should in no way be viewed as establishing that the complaints are substantiated. These are matters for the Ethics Committee to determine, and I specifically caution against such a view being formed or expressed. I seek leave to have a statement detailing my reasons regarding each matter incorporated in the parliamentary record. Leave granted. Standing Order 266 states in part: Examples of contempt Without limiting the power of the House, it may treat as a contempt any of the following: … (2) deliberately misleading the House or a committee (by way of submission, statement, evidence or petition) … It is well established that there are three elements to be established when it is alleged that a member has committed the contempt of deliberately misleading the House: first, the statement must, in fact, have been misleading; secondly, it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time the statement was made that it was incorrect; and thirdly, in making it, the member must have intended to mislead the House. Further, I note that comments made by the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee in its report Number 2 which are relevant to both of the matters considered below: At this juncture it is worth noting that the Committee does not believe that the statements made have to be necessarily false before a contempt could be proved. The term “misleading” is wider than “false” or “incorrect”. The Committee considers it possible, although rare and unlikely, that a technically factually correct statement could also be misleading. For example, the deliberate omission of relevant information could make an otherwise factually correct statement misleading. Standing Order 269(4) states: In considering whether the matter should be referred to the committee, the Speaker shall take account of the degree of importance of the matter which has been raised and whether an adequate apology or explanation has been made in respect of the matter. No matter should be referred to the ethics committee if the matter is technical or trivial and does not warrant the further attention of the House. Matter 1—Leader of the Opposition’s complaint against the Minister for Main Roads, Fisheries and Marine Infrastructure On 8 September 2011 the Minister for Main Roads, Fisheries and Marine Infrastructure, in answer to a question by the Member for Broadwater, alleged that the Leader of the LNP had released a policy for the Broadwater on the Gold Coast whereby dredging works on the Broadwater would be paid for by way of a toll. The Minister then tabled a document which he said had been “circulating on the Gold Coast”. By letter dated 26 September 2011, the Leader of the Opposition wrote to me contending that the Minister for Main Roads, Hon. Wallace deliberately misled the House by the tabling of the document. Although not the words used by the Leader of the Opposition in his complaint, the basic contention of the Leader of the Opposition is that the Minister by tabling the document created the impression that the document was a document of the LNP when it was in fact not an LNP document. In this way it is claimed that the Minister deliberately misled the House. The Minister contends, essentially, that at no time did he actually claim the document was an LNP document. However, the Minister does concede that the document was “an industry document that has been circulating on the Gold Coast for some time”. Furthermore, the Minister concedes that fax header and summary at the bottom of the document had been removed in his office prior to tabling. There does not appear to be dispute on the facts about the status of the document. It was clearly not an LNP document. However, it is open to interpret the Minister’s answer to the question as creating the impression that the document was an LNP document and thereby misleading. The Minister at no stage disclosed that the document was an industry document and not an LNP document. In other words, there is sufficient evidence to satisfy the first element of the offence. This matter comes down to what the Minister knew and intended and I believe it appropriate that issues of intention and credibility be determined by the Ethics Committee. Accordingly, I will be referring the matter to the Ethics Committee. 3474 Ministerial Papers 27 Oct 2011

Matter 2—The Member for Kawana’s complaint against the Minister for Education This is a complex matter that has been compounded by almost 10 centimetres of papers attached to the complaint, most of which are simply irrelevant to the complaint. Considerable time and effort has been wasted in the assessment of this matter by necessarily reviewing page upon page of irrelevant and extraneous material. The complaint in simple terms is that the Minister, in his previous portfolio as Attorney-General, deliberately misled the House in answer to a question on notice (QON 2254) in relation to the amount of money owed under the State Penalties Enforcement Registry (SPER). Specifically, the question sought the total amount of monies referred to SPER ‘remaining not under compliance’. Essentially, it is alleged that the Minister in his answer to the question understated the amount owing by approximately $300 million dollars. The Minister explains this matter by reference to the four categories of unpaid fines etc. referred to SPER which includes two categories that are “awaiting enforcement” or “under deferral”. The Minister argues that these categories include amounts not yet verified by SPER or which are disputed. The Minister argues that some of these fines will be written off or overturned and “in essence, fines within these two categories … are neither under compliance nor not under compliance”. The omission of these categories totalling approximately $300 million from the answer is the heart of the dispute. The Minister provided an extremely detailed submission addressing the complaint. A large part of the Minister’s submission was spent explaining the nuances of the SPER categories and system. The Minister appears to be arguing that on the basis that the additional two categories of debt are “not under compliance” then they are also not part of the fine pool being managed by SPER, which while not the precise words of the question asked is at least what a reasonable person would take its subject matter to be. I am not, as a result, convinced that a reasonable person would think that the amounts in these categories should have been omitted in the answer to the question without explanation. Further, by omitting the amounts in these categories, without explanation in the answer, the answer is capable of being seen as misleading. The amounts essentially disregarded were substantial, not insignificant. In summary, the Minister may well have provided an answer that he believed to be technically correct, but it still may have been misleading because while the information provided was correct, an omission made it misleading. In other words, there is sufficient evidence to satisfy the first element of the offence. In my view this matter comes down to what the Minister knew and intended and I believe it appropriate that issues of intention and credibility be determined by the Ethics Committee. Accordingly, I will be referring the matter to the Ethics Committee.

PETITIONS

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

Mystic Sands, Flying Foxes Mr Cripps, from 284 petitioners, requesting the House to direct the Minister for Environment to move the enormous flying fox colony from our residential area of Mystic Sands to a suitable area in the State Forest or National Parks land adjacent to our community [5736]. The Clerk presented the following paper petition, sponsored by the Clerk of the Parliament in accordance with Standing Order 119(3)—

Upper House, Referendum Mr McLindon, from 363 petitioners, requesting the House to hold a referendum in accordance with the Queensland Constitution to reintroduce an Upper House to be known as the Peoples House, consisting of the 45 mayors from Queensland’s most populated local councils [5737]. Petitions received.

MINISTERIAL PAPERS

Members’ Daily Travelling Allowance Claims; Travel Benefits for Former Members of the Legislative Assembly Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Acting Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development and Trade) (9.32 am): Honourable members, I lay upon the table of the House the annual report of daily travelling allowance claims by members of the Legislative Assembly for 2010-11. I also lay upon the table of the House the annual report of travel benefits afforded former members of the Legislative Assembly for 2010-11. Tabled paper: Daily travelling allowance claims by members of the Legislative Assembly—Annual Report 2010-11 [5738]. Tabled paper: Travel benefits afforded former members of the Legislative Assembly—Annual Report 2010-11 [5739]. The reports are tabled in accordance with the Members’ Entitlements Handbook pursuant to accountability reforms put in place by the Premier to enhance transparency. The reports demonstrate the enduring commitment of this parliament to transparency and accountability. 27 Oct 2011 Ministerial Statements 3475

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Queensland Economy Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Acting Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development and Trade) (9.33 am): As our economic recovery builds momentum, supported by muscular investment activity, the economic consequences of the natural disasters that struck our state are beginning to recede. At budget time it was considered that growth had been completely wiped out. Today, in accordance with the government’s accountability framework, I table both the Annual Economic Report and the Report on State Finances, which contains the Auditor-General’s unqualified endorsement of the state’s accounts. Tabled paper: Annual Economic Report on the Queensland economy—year ended 30 June 2011 [5740]. Tabled paper: 2010-11 Report on State Finances of the Queensland Government—30 June 2011 (Incorporating the Outcomes Report and the AASB 1049 Financial Statements) [5741]. The reports show that the headline growth figure for the year was in fact marginally above the original estimate—at positive 0.2 per cent. The report sets out in detail the impact of the natural disasters on the economy, including on key exporting sectors, such as mining, tourism and agriculture. Coal exports alone were 20 million tonnes lower than the previous financial year. It is worth noting, however, that the final export volume was in fact 1.3 million tonnes higher than the budget forecast. This stands in stark contrast to the claims by some in the industry that the forecasts were overstated at budget time. The facts, as ever, speak for themselves. Business investment was the key, and it is the key to our new economic prosperity ahead. In the June budget, I reported upon an estimation that business investment had grown by nine per cent last financial year—in fact the result was a stunning 19 per cent. The most significant figure detailed in today’s report is this: across the last financial year, 53,000 jobs were created. Mining contributed just under one-third of those jobs. The strength of activity and investment in mining also saw the budget bottom line improved. The Report on State Finances details a final general government operating deficit for 2010-11 of $1.51 billion—an improvement of $611 million from that forecast at budget time. The report confirms that as at 30 June 2011 debt was $17.7 billion lower than forecast before the government set out on its fiscal reform program in the 2009-10 budget. Royalties increased by $686 million on last year, wages expenses were down on budget, while outlays for natural disasters by 30 June were slightly higher as the government’s commitment to providing funds to undertake the massive reconstruction effort across the state continued. The government accounted for the losses in the budget delivered in June this year, and at the time said that the full toll would become clearer as the reconstruction and recovery effort took place. Those costs remain under close supervision by the Queensland Reconstruction Authority and indeed the Inspectorate. Value for money and efficiency are being pursued as councils in particular work through their initial damage assessments. The Labor government has a clear plan. We have set an economic course and we have put those policies in action. We are building job-generating infrastructure; we are ushering in tens of billions of dollars worth of business investment; debt and deficits are coming in lower; the finances are strengthening; jobs are being generated; and we are marching back to surplus—just like we said we would.

Queensland Economy Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Acting Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development and Trade) (9.36 am): Queensland has proven itself a magnet for investment from some of the world’s biggest companies, particularly in the resources sector. Today I can announce that the Coordinator-General has declared two more major projects in Central Queensland as significant projects under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act. These projects bring the promise of billions of dollars in investment and thousands of jobs to the Queensland economy. BHP Billiton MetCoal Holdings has proposed a rail project connecting the Goonyella Riverside Mine complex and the Port of Abbot Point, with plans for the establishment of a rail line that could service new mines and expansion projects within the Bowen Basin. The proposed project involves the development of a new 250 to 290 kilometre rail line and associated infrastructure and it could potentially export around 60 million tonnes of coal each year. On current planning, construction would commence by 2015, with exports beginning in 2016. This line will complement the Northern Missing Link, which, as announced by QR National CEO Lance Hockridge this week, is fully contracted and will be completed by the end of the year—ahead of time. It further underscores the potential for Abbot Point to become one of the biggest coal export ports in the world. 3476 Ministerial Statements 27 Oct 2011

The second project is the Dudgeon Point Coal Terminal which is being built by a consortium led by North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation. Located near the Port of Hay Point, the Dudgeon Point Coal Terminal, if approved, would involve the development of two new coal terminals with a combined export capacity of 180 million tonnes per year—almost exactly the amount of coal exported out of the entire state in 2009-10. This massive project is potentially worth $10 billion to $12 billion in new investment in the economy, which stands to deliver another 5,000 construction jobs alone. Both of these projects also have the potential to create numerous flow-on jobs and other opportunities for both the local and Queensland economies. It is important to note that a declaration from the Coordinator-General does not mean a rails run or complete environmental compliance guaranteed. Indeed, both projects now move into the formal environmental impact statement phase, where the local community and other stakeholders will get their say on the projects. As with all major projects, the Coordinator-General will make an assessment of achieving the balance between the viability of the project and its impact on both the local community and the economy more broadly. These two new projects underscore the complete confidence in the long-term future of the Queensland economy.

Advance Cairns Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Acting Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development and Trade) (9.38 am): This morning I wish to congratulate Advance Cairns chairman, Russell Beer, and all board members on the organisation’s 10th anniversary. In 2001, Advance Cairns was formed to forge links between the Cairns business community and the emerging Chinese market. As Advance Cairns grew, it began to pursue and deliver broader regional economic development projects and brought the major local economic development groups together under one umbrella. Advance Cairns has been integral in working with the state government, in particular with the members for Cairns, Barron River, Mulgrave and Cook, who represent the region so well in this place, to deliver what people want—the outcomes for the Far North. In particular, the government and Advance Cairns have worked together on initiatives like the Cairns Economic Future Plan and the Tropical North Queensland Regional Economic Plan. I recently attended the launch of Advance Cairns’s Tropical North Queensland Regional Economic Plan in which it used widespread consultation to formulate its 20-year vision. Together with the five-year action plan, this provides a blueprint for coordinating the region’s economic efforts for mutual, long-term and enduring prosperity. Last year the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation partnered with Advance Cairns to capture export opportunities for marine maintenance and refitting. The Marine Services Business Matching project resulted in six local contracts worth nearly a million dollars being won—a great achievement in a very difficult trading environment. This year we are partnering with Advance Cairns to deliver the Tropical North Queensland mining strategy and the ICT industry and network development. Advance Cairns has also been integral in promoting and growing tropical expertise in the region and has established the Austropex industry group. It must be said that the regions of Queensland often talk about having a peak business body that can represent them locally and across the state, and Cairns certainly has one. I look forward to working with Advance Cairns to achieve its goal of seeing Tropical North Queensland become the world’s leading sustainable tropical region by 2031. It can today be recognised for a decade of leadership and for ensuring that Cairns speaks with one voice—a united voice of leadership.

Youth Justice Hon. KL STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (Minister for Community Services and Housing and Minister for Women) (9.40 am): The Bligh government has strengthened the youth justice laws in Queensland. Over a 10-year period we have lowered the rate of youth crime by 7.7 per cent. We have had great success with rehabilitation programs, but there is a small cohort of serial youth offenders resistant to rehabilitation. Some 200 youth offenders are responsible for more than one-quarter of the offences committed by 10- to 16-year-olds each year in Queensland. I am pleased to say that the state government is taking further strong action to curb youth crime. Today I announce a youth offender blitz. We have already kicked it off in Rockhampton with positive results and will be rolling it out in Cairns, Caboolture, Ipswich, Logan and the Gold Coast. It is a four-pronged blitz that will target 200 young offenders to ensure they are learning or earning, not offending. They will be undergoing intensive case planning and follow-through, one-on-one support and mentoring, and we will be getting parents to get involved and take more responsibility. The overwhelming majority of young Queenslanders do the right thing. For those who do get into trouble with the police, we know for most that it serves as a wake-up call to them and their parents and they do not reoffend. We are tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. We will be doing the hard work— individual follow-through with these serial young offenders to make sure they get back on track; dealing with family dysfunction; holding parents responsible; and supporting young people into stable housing, education or work. In stark contrast, the LNP is all slogans and no policy. It has publicly stated that it 27 Oct 2011 Ministerial Statements 3477 would shift the entire youth justice system to the adult justice system. Evidence suggests that this ‘throw away the key’ mentality would only serve to breed fitter and faster criminals—fitter and faster adult criminals. The LNP would create more bullies, and we know that there are more than enough bullies in the ranks of the LNP.

Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian

Hon. PG REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety and Minister for Sport) (9.42 am): On Tuesday of this week the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian released its annual child guardian report. The safety and protection of children and young people is a key priority for the Queensland government and I am pleased to say that the report has noted many positive improvements for the department including a significant increase in the number of families directed to referral for active intervention services; 92 per cent of children reported being satisfied with the amount of family contact; 98 per cent of children reporting feeling safe in their care arrangements; 96 per cent of eligible children had adequate resources to enable them to engage in school: 95 per cent of children told community visitors that they were involved in decisions regarding their health concerns; and 98.5 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children reported that they were satisfied with the support provided by caregivers to participate in cultural activities and maintain cultural links. The report has also identified areas that require attention. For example, despite the efforts of our dedicated staff, it is sometimes not possible to commence an investigation within the required time frame. In some circumstances families will actively avoid Child Safety Services staff. They will actively avoid the police, with whom we work closely to ensure the safety of children and young people.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children remain overrepresented in the child protection system. In 2010 the Queensland government refocused its funding to increase family support services for Indigenous families when they need it the most. With regard to case planning, it is true that at any point in time there can be children in care who do not yet have a case plan. This can be for a number of reasons, including where there is a significant disagreement between the parents and other family members about the contents of the case plan. Quality case planning takes careful assessment and is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Since 2004 we have more than doubled the staffing in Queensland and increased the budget by more than 400 per cent. This enables a better investment in our foster and kinship carers, in our non-government partners and in programs and placements to support Queensland’s most vulnerable children and young people. For example, our Helping Out Families initiative is a $55 million investment over four years in the Logan and Gold Coast corridor which provides key services including health home visiting for infants and effective linking of key secondary support services.

In 2011-12 we are investing $733 million to keeping our children safe. This dwarfs the $35 million budget the LNP last allocated to child protection when it was last in government. Yesterday I challenged the LNP to release a child safety policy after it released a discussion paper in June last year, which has since been taken off its website. That is far from a policy. I again call on the LNP to let Queenslanders know where it stands instead of showing no direction. This challenge still stands.

Computers in Schools

Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Minister for Education and Industrial Relations) (9.45 am): The National Secondary School Computer Fund is an Australian government initiative designed to ensure that every Australian student in years 9 to 12 has access to a computer by 31 December 2011. I am pleased to inform the House that the rollout of computers in Queensland schools is on track. Some 305 schools in Queensland are participating in this program, which will have long-term positive benefits for student learning. By the middle of this year, more than 50,000 computers had been installed in state high schools under this program. A further 7,700 were delivered in August and September this year and more than 20,000 are being delivered this month. The remaining devices—almost 33,000—will be delivered in November and December 2011. The state government is providing additional funding over the next three years to support this Australian government initiative. This funding will be utilised primarily on operational infrastructure and network equipment.

The funding of this scheme from both the Australian and Queensland governments is providing a free computer to every student in years 9 to 12. In some schools, however, the school community has decided that it wants an enhanced service. This includes the capacity to take the computers home overnight and at weekends, longer-life batteries, the cost of licences for enhanced software, accidental damage insurance and a free replacement scheme, otherwise known as a hot swap. In some cases, school communities agree that parents can pay an additional contribution on a voluntary basis if they wish for these enhanced services. Under Queensland government policy, these extra fees can be charged only if they have the support of the school community through the P&C association. 3478 Ministerial Statements 27 Oct 2011

Irrespective of whether a school introduces an enhanced option for student use of laptops, every student in Queensland classrooms will have access to the computer technology they need to complete their studies at school. Furthermore, these enhanced schemes are entirely voluntary. If parents either do not want to be involved or cannot afford the extra payments, they do not have to pay them. These fees are similar to fees that are contributed by parents for enhanced vocational education programs or sporting excellence programs or textbook hire schemes. The common element to all of these schemes is that they have been endorsed or supported by the school community. My concern with the matter raised in the media this morning is that it appears that the voluntary nature of these schemes has not been fully explained to the school community. This morning I have asked the Director-General of the Department of Education and Training to ensure that these enhanced schemes are fully explained to parents and the broader school community. This computer for students program is a very worthwhile initiative and will have significant long-term benefits for Queensland children.

Police Service, Resources Hon. NS ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services) (9.48 am): Since the Labor government was first elected in 1998, the police operating budget has increased by more than $1 billion. This financial year the revised police operating budget is $1.893 billion—an increase of more than $70 million, or four per cent on 2010-11. Since 1998 the number of sworn police officers in Queensland has increased by around 50 per cent—from around 6,800 in June 1998 to over 10,500 currently. In August this year the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission determined that police would receive an 11.1 per cent wage increase over three years— 3.8 per cent, 3.8 per cent and 3.5 per cent—and the government has accepted the umpire’s decision. The Bligh government will fund the vast majority of the costs associated with this increase. The ongoing recurrent cost of the increase is around $139 million per year with the government contributing around $112 million per year. The Police Service has been asked to find savings to help fund the increase. That is good management practice. The Police Service will fund a share of the increase of around $27 million a year from its $1.893 billion operating budget. The Police Commissioner and his senior executives met yesterday to discuss where and how that contribution would be achieved. In line with government policy, there will be no reduction in the number of sworn police officers. In fact, the number of sworn police officers will continue to grow. Additionally, no permanent QPS civilian employees will be forced to leave their employment. The vast majority of the QPS share of the wage increase will be derived from the voluntary separation program, with approximately 250 positions expected to be offered. All government departments have been offering voluntary separations under this package. Other savings will accrue from natural attrition, if necessary, and the withdrawing of some planned growth in civilian positions this year. I note again and emphasise that sworn police officer numbers will not be reduced and, in fact, will continue to grow as they have been doing under this government. I am confident that these changes will be managed by the service in a way which continues the service’s already strong focus on front-line service delivery. Even with up to 200 civilians requesting voluntary separations through the VSP process, there will still be in excess of 4,000 civilian staff supporting front-line officers in their duties.

Bureau of Meteorology Hon. RG NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (Minister for Finance, Natural Resources and the Arts) (9.51 am): As this House is aware, the Bureau of Meteorology has now provided an updated briefing on the seasonal weather forecast. In accordance with the commission of inquiry’s recommendations, I am seeking expert advice regarding a temporary reduction in the full supply level of Wivenhoe Dam. I will rely on this professional advice, which I have requested within two weeks, to set the dam levels for the upcoming wet season. This is no time for rash decisions and exploitation of people’s fears. The commission of inquiry’s interim report sets out some very clear guidelines on how decisions should be made regarding lowering our dam levels, and we will follow them to the letter. The commission stated in recommendation 2.4 that, for the purposes of making any decision about a temporary alteration to full supply level, the minister should receive advice from Seqwater, the water grid manager, the Water Commission and the Department of Environment and Resource Management. That is what I am doing. The commission of inquiry stated in recommendation 2.5 that, if the Bureau of Meteorology makes a similar seasonal forecast to that made for the 2010-11 wet season expressed with equal or greater confidence for the 2011-12 wet season, the Queensland government should temporarily reduce the full supply level of Wivenhoe Dam to 75 per cent with a concomitant adjustment to the trigger levels for the strategies in the Wivenhoe manual. 27 Oct 2011 Ministerial Statements 3479

If we are advised to lower the dams, we will lower them immediately. We will do the reasonable and the responsible thing. With dam levels today sitting at 81 per cent, there is time for us to make a proper and informed decision on whether a reduction to 75 per cent would be appropriate. This issue must be above politics. That was the clear intention of the commission of inquiry. Now is not the time for uninformed, knee-jerk reactions from those who bear no responsibility for balancing flood risk with future water supply levels or, indeed, from those who, in the lead-up to last year’s floods, were calling for water levels to be raised. This government is committed to ensuring that all the lessons from last summer’s disasters are not forgotten. We have always said that we will prepare for the worst while we hope for the best, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Wild Rivers

Hon. VE DARLING (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (9.53 am): Our government is committed to giving Queensland’s remote and unspoiled country the best protection to ensure that we secure our state’s environmental future. That is why we have already declared 10 wild rivers and that is why we are undertaking widespread consultation on our proposal to declare the Lake Eyre Basin rivers in the near future. Past wild river declarations have occurred after extensive consultation involving hundreds of onsite meetings and thousands of submissions. That is why today we reaffirm our commitment to establish Indigenous reference groups to inform the development of potential wild river declarations in Cape York. These are groups consisting of people who can speak for their country, who can ensure Indigenous people’s aspirations—culturally, economically and environmentally—can be taken into account in future declarations. These groups will now be set up in the Coleman, Olive-Pascoe and Watson catchments in Cape York. In close consultation it is anticipated the groups for these areas should be established ready for their first meeting within the next month. We anticipate that, after some initial consultation with these groups, there will be declaration proposals for each area before the end of the year. I want to ensure there is thorough consultation, so we will take as long as we need to take in each catchment to hear everyone’s views. However, I would be hopeful that we will start to see wild rivers declarations within these catchments by mid-2012. These groups will be front and centre of consultation. Recently the Lake Eyre Basin Aboriginal forum called on the government to declare the Cooper, Georgina and Diamantina basins. We have listened, just as we are listening to a range of others who have made their support for wild rivers clear. I have been fortunate enough to stand on the banks of the beautiful Wenlock River. Just last week, I was able to stand on the banks of the Cooper. It is an opportunity everyone should have. Trust me, this is God’s own country and we are in the envious position of being home to some of the world’s last river systems that are in near natural condition. We are fortunate that these wild rivers remain pristine. The Wenlock alone, for instance, is home to the largest number of freshwater fish species of any Australian river, including rare and threatened animals like the Australian snubfin dolphins. We are determined that these spectacular rivers will remain that way, today reaffirming our commitment to this new consultative initiative.

Integrity Reforms

Hon. SD FINN (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (Minister for Government Services, Building Industry and Information and Communication Technology) (9.56 am): Queensland leads the nation in delivering open and accountable government. To keep pace with change and to meet the highest ethical standards, the Bligh government has undertaken significant integrity and accountability reform. In 2009 we launched the most comprehensive review of Queensland’s integrity framework in 20 years and, arising from this review, the government developed a program of integrity reform to ensure Queensland is at the forefront of open and accountable government. One of the ‘strong scrutiny’ reforms adopted was the requirement for details of government procurement contracts over the value of $10,000 to be publicly published, lowering the previous threshold for published contracts from $100,000. In addition, when the government enters into procurement contracts of $10 million or more, there is now a requirement for extra details to be automatically published. These details are made available on the eTender website and published in the government’s Contracts Directory. We know that government contracts are entered into on behalf of the public, and this government is determined to ensure that members of the public can scrutinise large disbursements of public funds. This reform ensures that all Queenslanders have the opportunity to do so. The integrity reforms also apply to government owned corporations, large statutory bodies and special purpose vehicles. To give members an idea of the size of these reforms, it is estimated that more than 100,000 transactions annually will be published on the Queensland Contracts Directory alone. 3480 Ethics Committee 27 Oct 2011

Transparency and integrity of government needs to be an ongoing project. That is why the Queensland Chief Procurement Office is already investigating future options to upgrade the current publications system to make it even more open and user friendly. Commitment to an accountable and open government, with reforms such as these, builds the strength of our democracy in Queensland and the Bligh government’s status as the most open, transparent and accountable government in Australia.

COMMITTEE OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Portfolio Committee, Reporting Date Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (9.58 am): I advise the House that, in accordance with standing order 136, the Committee of the Legislative Assembly has fixed the reporting date for the Strategic Cropping Land Bill as 21 November 2011.

ABSENCE OF MEMBER Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (9.58 am): I also wish to update the House on the health of the member for Springwood. As members know, the member for Springwood has been suffering from pneumonia since July this year. On Tuesday she attended parliament and her health again took a turn for the worse and she was sent home. As members know, she is an incredibly strong and hardworking member, but this has been a very long and difficult period for her. I wish to advise the House that over the next few months I will be assisting the member for Springwood in her duties as the member for Springwood. Barbara will endeavour to attend some functions in her electorate if she has good days. Otherwise, I will be doing that on her behalf.

COMMITTEE OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Report Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (9.59 am): I table report No.3 of the Committee of the Legislative Assembly titled Annual report 2010-11. Tabled paper: Committee of the Legislative Assembly: Report No. 3—Annual Report 2010-11 [5742].

ETHICS COMMITTEE

Report Mr MOORHEAD (Waterford—ALP) (9.59 am): I table report No. 118 of the Ethics Committee titled Matter of privilege referred by the Speaker on 26 May 2011 relating to alleged insufficient care being taken by a member when tabling documents and on 10 June 2011 relating to an alleged breach of the sub judice rule by a member when tabling documents, and matter of privilege referred by the Speaker on 18 August 2011 relating to an alleged contempt of impugning the Assembly’s ethics processes and by pre-judging an inquiry outcome impugning the Ethics Committee’s processes and deliberations. I commend the report and the committee’s recommendations to the House. Tabled paper: Ethics Committee: Report No. 118—Matter of privilege referred by the Speaker on 26 May 2011 relating to alleged insufficient care being taken by a member when tabling documents and on 10 June 2011 relating to an alleged breach of the sub judice rule by a member when tabling documents, and matter of privilege referred by the Speaker on 18 August 2011 relating to an alleged contempt of impugning the Assembly’s ethics processes and by prejudging an inquiry outcome impugning the Ethics Committee’s processes and deliberations [5743]. Mr MESSENGER: I rise to a point of order in relation to standing order 248. It is a matter concerning the rights, powers and immunities of the House suddenly arising. I rise to advise honourable members that the process adopted by the parliamentary Ethics Committee for a referral by the Speaker has denied me procedural fairness. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no provision for the honourable member to consider the report. The report has not been considered by the House. There will be a motion put subsequently and the honourable gentleman will have the opportunity at that stage. Mr MESSENGER: I am not dealing with the substantive matters of the report; I am dealing with the procedure in which the report was generated, under standing order 248. Mr SPEAKER: It is not an appropriate forum now. The honourable gentleman will have the time to canvass those issues when there is a motion before the House to that effect. All that has happened today is that the report has been tabled and the House at an appropriate time will consider that report. If the honourable gentleman wants to persist with this process I will have to rule him out of order. 27 Oct 2011 Questions Without Notice 3481

INDUSTRY, EDUCATION, TRAINING AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE

Report Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (10.01 am): I lay upon the table of the House the Industry, Education, Training and Industrial Relations Committee’s annual report for 2010-11. This report covers the period from 16 June to 30 June 2011. I commend this report to the House. I also lay upon the table of the House the Industry, Education, Training and Industrial Relations Committee’s report No. 3, Quarterly report on subordinate legislation tabled between 1 July 2011 and 30 September 2011. This report covers the portfolio subordinate legislation tabled on 2 August 2011 which was considered by the committee. The subordinate legislation has a disallowance date of 27 October. The committee did not identify any significant issues regarding consistency with fundamental legislative principles or the lawfulness of the subordinate legislation and recommends that the Legislative Assembly note the subordinate legislation. I commend the report to the House. Tabled paper: Industry, Education, Training and Industrial Relations Committee: Report No. 2—Annual Report 2010-11 [5744]. Tabled paper: Industry, Education, Training and Industrial Relations Committee: Report No. 3—Quarterly report on subordinate legislation tabled between 1 July 2011 and 30 September 2011 [5745].

COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Report Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (10.02 am): I lay upon the table of the House report No. 5 of the Community Affairs Committee. This report covers the subordinate legislation tabled between 2 and 23 August 2011 considered by the committee. The subordinate legislation has disallowance dates between 27 October and 17 November 2011. The committee did not identify any significant issues regarding consistency with fundamental legislative principles or the lawfulness of the subordinate legislation. I commend the report to the House. Tabled paper: Community Affairs Committee: Report No. 5—Report on subordinate legislation tabled between 2 August 2011 and 23 August 2011 [5746].

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

School Group Tours Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, we will be visited today by the students, teachers and parents from the following schools: St Patrick’s Catholic School in the electorate of Bundaberg; Corinda State High School in the electorate of Mount Ommaney; and the Faith Lutheran College of Plainland in the electorate of Lockyer. Question time will end at 11.03 am.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

The Greens, Policies Mr SEENEY (10.03 am): My question without notice is to the Acting Premier. I refer to claims by Greens party members that they were responsible for motivating the Acting Premier to introduce a private member’s bill into the parliament this week, and I ask— Ms Jones interjected. Mr SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has the call. He has the right to be heard in silence. I would ask members to respect that. Mr SEENEY: I refer to claims by the Greens party members that they were responsible for motivating the Acting Premier to introduce a private member’s bill into the parliament this week, and I ask: is the Labor government, in a desperate bid to cling to power with the support of the Greens, willing to adopt other Greens party policies like the introduction of death duties and the decriminalisation of hard drugs? Mr FRASER: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Let me state categorically this: the initiative that was brought to the parliament was an initiative of this government and of this government alone. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked. The Acting Premier is answering the question. He has the right to be heard in silence. There has been no offence occasioned to anybody else. I would ask that members honour that. 3482 Questions Without Notice 27 Oct 2011

Mr FRASER: I am aware of the report that I saw in the Brisbane Times where some members of the Greens political party are seeking to make this point. It seems to me to be quite typical of the Greens—that is, being out there and putting forward views that actually do not match in with the reality of life. Let me be very clear about what happens with the Greens political party in my electorate. They are not out there to support me. They have never preferenced me. They have never directed preferences to me and I do not expect them to. I have not asked for them and I do not expect to get them. The thing about my electorate is that they do not want to support me; they want to defeat me. It is far from being some great conspiracy. First they bowled up Andrew Carroll, then they bowled up Juanita Wheeler as the leader, then they bowled up Larissa Waters as the leader. Each and every time they have sought to win my seat—to defeat me, not elect me. The sophistry and the nonsense from those opposite in seeking to peddle what is ultimately a vacuous line from the Greens political party is exposed for what it is: low-rent politics. This government’s position—the Labor Party’s position—on things like drugs and death duties is absolutely crystal clear. We have our own policies. They are policies that are in action. It is a lot more than can be said for the Greens and, frankly, it is a lot more than can be said for those on the other side. What you see is the policies of this government in action, out there winding up the Queensland economy, putting the investment surge through, seeing 53,000 jobs generated last year, a strengthening of the state’s finances, continuing to deliver initiatives and delivering strong protection for the environment, as the Minister for Environment announced this morning, progressing our proposals to make sure that we protect the most pristine wild rivers in this state, supporting action on climate change and supporting youth justice initiatives, as the Minister for Community Services said. That stands in stark contrast to the complete blank page, the complete moral vacuum that exists on the other side. This week we have seen that when it comes to the morals of those on the other side they are as bankrupt as the Clem7 tunnel. When it comes to the policy stage, it is as empty as King George Square. It is fast becoming the case that, when it comes to their shiny new toy in Campbell Newman, he has as many friends as those poor forlorn town bikes across the road. They are walking away. It was meant to turn a profit, it was meant to be a profitable enterprise, but what we see is a long- term liability. The Greens, Preferences Mr SEENEY: Given the answer that the Acting Premier gave to my first question, my second question without notice is also to the Acting Premier. Referring to the answer that the Acting Premier gave to the first question, will the Acting Premier completely rule out any policy for preferences deals with the Greens party that would give Queensland a state Labor government that would be as dysfunctional as the Greens controlled Labor government in Canberra led by Julia Gillard? Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: You are going to re-word it because it does not relate to public administration. It relates to politics, but it does not relate to public administration. Mr FRASER: I am happy to answer it. Mr SPEAKER: The Acting Premier is happy to answer the question; I understand that. It is my role to ensure that the question is within the standing orders. Mr SEENEY: My question goes to the heart of the operations of a future state Labor government. I ask the Acting Premier: will the Acting Premier rule out any policy for preferences deals with the Greens party that would give Queensland a state Labor government that would operate similarly to the Greens controlled Labor government in Canberra led by Julia Gillard? Mr FRASER: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Let me state categorically, on behalf of the Labor government, that we will never form government with the Greens in this state. Categorically, we will never form government with the Greens in this state. I give that categorical assurance. What the other side will not do is give the same assurance about forming government with One Nation. In recent times the heat has been put on about whether or not Campbell Newman would take One Nation preferences, and he is still yet to utter the words that he rejects One Nation policies and will not do a preference deal with them or accept their support on the floor of the parliament. He has not ruled out accepting the support of One Nation on the floor of the parliament. Instead, he jumped right over the top of that and went out in a typical rash way, in a typical fuse- blowing way—a typical tempestuous moment from the little bloke—and said, ‘Guess what? We are not going to do anything with everybody.’ What happened then? Did the team roll in behind him? No. The member for the Hinchinbrook started to shift in his seat. The member for Burdekin started to shift in her seat. A whole range of them started to move around a bit because they suddenly felt the big hat coming. They saw the big hat of Bob Katter coming—and they know that there is a great big pile of 20 per cent that just moved right away. 27 Oct 2011 Questions Without Notice 3483

Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that the Treasurer has been practising his little performance for quite some time, but I question whether it is relevant. My question was about the future performance of a state Labor government. I question the relevance of the Acting Premier’s choreographed routine to that question. Mr Kilburn: Someone throw a towel in. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! If there is another attempt to interrupt when I am about to rule, you will not be throwing a towel in; I will be throwing somebody out. I would have thought there was sufficient latitude by the chair in allowing the question. I am going to allow some latitude to the honourable Acting Premier in his answer. I call the honourable Acting Premier. Mr FRASER: What we know is that there is a fair amount of disquiet over there. We have seen the disquiet this week when there were those on the other side who wanted to come in here and stand up for decency and stand up for human rights and they got steamrolled by the McIvers of this world. What we know is that there is a fair amount of disquiet over there. There is a fair amount of stink finger going on on the other side because they know that Campbell Newman—someone who does not understand the way it works but thinks he knows everything—went out and adopted a strategy that consigned the member for Hinchinbrook, the member for Burdekin and a couple of others to a 20 per cent wipe-out from their primary vote. That means that we will not be expecting them back here anytime soon. Ultimately, what he wants to do is sit and work with the Katter party, which we find out today is basically a front for gun-runners. Ultimately, these guys want to sit down with One Nation and Bob Katter’s gun-running party. Sometimes one has to wonder, given some of the things that come out from underneath that hat. Ultimately, what people have from us is a commitment that we will not form government with the Greens because what we are going to do is go out there and get the No. 1 votes to re-elect a Labor government to protect the economy and deliver Queensland’s future. Skills Mrs SMITH: My question is also to the Acting Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development and Trade. The Gold Coast recently hosted a mining and skills expo which was attended by many thousands seeking information. Can the Acting Premier provide the House with an update on the government’s initiatives to meet the requirements for skilled workers? Is the Acting Premier aware of any other plans? Mr FRASER: I thank the member for Burleigh for her question and for her support for this government’s economic policies that are delivering jobs into the Queensland economy and, more particularly, for her support for our mining and gas jobs expos, the first of which kicked off on the Gold Coast last Wednesday. I went along to that expo. What we saw were thousands upon thousands of Queenslanders looking to update their skills, looking to get a piece of the action, looking to join in on the investment boom that is occurring in this state. What we saw was policies in action as we put in place the strategies to deliver the skilled workers that are going to be needed. We were expecting around 4,000 people. We saw a stunning turnout at the Gold Coast Convention and Exhibition Centre. Instead, we saw more than 10,000 people turn up. They have confidence in the future of Queensland. We saw more than 4,000 turn up last Friday on the Sunshine Coast. Tomorrow we are in the Wide Bay area. Next week we are in Cairns and then we are in Airlie Beach. We see the opportunity for many different regions of our state to join the investment platform that is going to drive growth and going to drive the economy for the future. What we have seen from the other side is that they only ever talk about a four-pillar strategy. They do not much go beyond the banality of the four pillars, but it is fast being revealed what those four pillars are. Pillar No. 1 is McIver, pillar No. 2 is McGrath, pillar No. 3 is O’Dwyer and pillar No. 4 is O’Sullivan. We can only imagine the sort of economic activity they have been up to: writing a cheque for 12,000 bucks to have their paid-for-sloganeering figurehead in Campbell Newman run out there and say whatever it is they want him to say; writing cheques for thousands of dollars for ‘dirt files’; and, of course, not writing cheques for taxpayer funded travel that they put Campbell Newman on in the last couple of days. What this gives is a great insight into the way in which a future LNP government would operate. We have been out there talking about jobs, and those opposite are going to be out on the streets of the Gold Coast for rent because the LNP conference is on. They will be trawling around. Mr O’Sullivan will be holding court: ‘Come along and pay for a policy.’ What we will find is that they will be the people who are running the show. One person will not be. In the corner will be the mascot, Campbell Newman, jumping, squealing, drawing attention to himself, spinning around and being revealed for what he is—in 3484 Questions Without Notice 27 Oct 2011 the end, a marketing slogan overlaid in ego and nothing underneath. He is someone who this week has been exposed as a man without courage or conviction, without the capacity to stand up for his own conscience, without the capacity to ever lead, without the capacity to take action and without the capacity to stand up to those characters running the LNP. Ultimately, what the people of Queensland have realised and what those opposite are realising is that what they bought in Campbell Newman was not what they hoped. It is this government that continues to offer a hope for the future. (Time expired) Construction Industry Mr NICHOLLS: My question without notice is to the Acting Premier. With today’s Property Council of Australia and ANZ survey showing that confidence in Queensland’s economy has waned under the Bligh government while Western Australia streaks ahead, why is the Acting Premier not working to stop job losses in the housing and construction industry rather than persisting in his chase for a distraction and Greens preferences? Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on my right will cease interjecting. Ms Nolan interjected. Mr SPEAKER: The Minister for Finance will ceasing interjecting. I call the Acting Premier. Mr FRASER: I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question. I provide him with this opportunity. If he would like to do something for the housing industry in Queensland, later on today he can come in here and support and vote for the Queensland Building Boost Grant Bill, which will be debated shortly after question time and delivers a $10,000 Building Boost for people into the housing market. Up until this point they have opposed and derided it. I thank the honourable member for drawing attention to the Property Council release that came out this morning. I know that he has a tie with the Property Council with a former staff member involved in the council. They have not done their homework fully because ultimately— Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Acting Premier. Mr FRASER: They needed to get to page 3, because at the bottom of page 3, under the heading ‘What’s driving the market?’ and what is driving uncertainty, they say— This reflects the forthcoming Queensland election (with an opposition leader not yet in the Parliament) ... So ultimately one of the things that the property industry is worried about is the political uncertainty caused by the absurdity of the political proposition that is being put forward by those opposite. It always pays to read to the end of the report. It always pays to do your homework if you want to run this state. It always pays to dot the i’s and cross the t’s, rather than going out there on a Newmanesque flight of fancy up the runway and away you go without thinking that anyone is ever going to check or ask a question. Mr Speaker, what you see from this government is a government in action this week. What you see from those opposite is a hopelessly compromised and divided, infighting, unruly mob—the same it has been since Adam was a boy. What we know is that it is the same old Nats and the same old Libs having the same old fights. They just have Bruce McIver playing the role of Sir Robert Sparkes this year. Other than that, it should be on Movie Greats, because it is a sad old story—one with the same old actors, the same old jokers and the some old ructions that lie deep between the Liberal and National parties. On this side of the parliament you see a united team—one that has had the courage of its convictions, one that has had the courage to lead, one that has had the courage to put in place policies that have delivered jobs, delivered investment, delivered infrastructure. The results are out there and they speak for themselves—a united team, one that stands up for minorities, stands up for the broad community, stands square shouldered in order to be able to chart a course for the future as opposed to those on the other side who represent nothing more than a weak, watery shadow of the past. Sunshine Coast, Economic Development Ms O’NEILL: My question is to the Acting Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development and Trade. Will the Acting Premier advise the House of an important milestone in the economic development of the Sunshine Coast and is he aware of any other economic plans? 27 Oct 2011 Questions Without Notice 3485

Mr FRASER: I thank the member for Kallangur for her question and for her commitment also to the economic policies that this government is pursuing. As I advised the House earlier this morning, the Coordinator-General has today announced that two major projects have been given state significance status in the Bowen Basin. But there is a third project also which will today be declared as a project of state significance, and that is the project to upgrade the Sunshine Coast Airport. This $419 million airport, being championed by the Sunshine Coast Regional Council, has the potential to deliver a much longer runway to deliver a new generation of aircraft. That will have benefits for the Sunshine Coast Regional Council, as the owner of that airport, for the tourism industry that the Sunshine Coast depends upon and, indeed, will generate construction jobs as the new project is delivered into the future. So that is three major projects of state significance announced today, along with the announcement earlier this week of two new gas-fired power stations for the state, as we seek to move this economy to a cleaner energy profile. Gas is the key transition fuel and it is this government that has put the policy settings in place to deliver that. What have you seen from the government this week, Mr Speaker? You have seen initiatives in green tape to protect the environment but to take the regulatory burden off business. You have seen youth justice initiatives to make sure that we can deliver safety into the community and make sure that young people are given a chance in life. You have seen also extra funding into Home and Community Care, announced by the Minister for Disability Services and Mental Health. You have seen funding under the Natural Disaster Resilience Program, announced by the Minister for Emergency Services. You have seen new funds announced by the Minister for Sport into sporting clubs, the hubs of modern community life. You have seen a government prepared to stand up with the courage of its convictions and to stand for human rights to promote the truth in human relationships. Across the economy and across areas of social endeavour, this is a government that is delivering an agenda, and you have seen it in action this week. What have you seen on the other side? You have seen absolutely nothing that recognises what their role in this parliament is. You have seen only that they are prepared to kowtow to the people who stand outside this parliament, who would seek to pay the piper, who would seek to call the shots, who would seek to make sure that decent individual members on the other side who want to vote for a future bill are being told that they cannot. Instead, they are being fenced in, they are being wrapped up, they are being knuckled down. They are getting the political equivalent of a ‘doing over’, and there they are sitting as silent and as quiet as those who know that they have lost their conscience, that they have lost their ability to stand in this parliament. What you see from this government is a government in action. What you see from the other side is a political party that should have the last rites administered.

Police Service, Resources Mr LANGBROEK: My question without notice is to the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services. I refer to Labor’s policy of cutting 250 civilian staff from the Queensland police. How can he say front-line staff will not be affected when it is police that will have to fill these jobs by doing extra paperwork, data entry and staffing front counters? Mr ROBERTS: The member for Surfers Paradise obviously was not listening to my ministerial statement this morning when I outlined the arrangements that will be put in place with regard to the EB6, and also this matter has been answered in response to a couple of questions that I have had. I have made it perfectly clear that the vast majority of this funding is being provided directly by government. As with all agencies, the Queensland Police Service is expected to operate efficiently and effectively and is being asked to find some savings. The majority of those savings will come from the voluntary separation package. There will be some other issues about natural attrition et cetera, but the overall majority will be from voluntary separation. That comes as no surprise because this is something which has been happening across all government agencies for some months. Government made it clear that there was a voluntary separation package where up to 3,500 positions would be offered. No-one would be forced to leave. In respect of the Queensland Police Service, it would be expected that possibly 200 to 250 people may be offered or accept voluntary separation—still leaving in excess of 4,000 people in the civilian workforce to support front-line service delivery. Let us look at the record of this government in terms of supporting police resourcing—the police to population ratio. The member should be able to recite these figures now, because he should know them; I have repeated them often enough. We have increased resourcing to the Queensland Police Service since being in office from having one police officer for every 507 people to now having one police officer for every 436—an increase, when you look at the raw numbers, of more than 50 per cent since we came to office. What policy did the LNP go to the last election on in terms of reducing numbers right across-the- board in the public sector? For a start, they went to the election with a policy to cut $1 billion out of government departments’ budgets— A government member: Each year. 3486 Questions Without Notice 27 Oct 2011

Mr ROBERTS: Each year and a policy to reduce staff numbers across the public sector by 12,000 a year, or 36,000 across the term of the government. Yes, there will be a requirement of Queensland police to find savings. The majority of those savings will be found through the voluntary separation package. None of the permanent employees will be forced to leave. Contrast that with the policy that this opposition went to the election with to scrap 12,000 jobs a year—36,000 jobs over three years—and to cut $1 billion out of all government departments’ budgets each year of their term. Bruce Highway, Upgrade Ms NELSON-CARR: My question is to the Minister for Main Roads, Fisheries and Marine Infrastructure. Can the minister please update the House on the millions of dollars in projects underway to upgrade the Bruce Highway and advise of any commitments the minister is aware of about these works? Mr WALLACE: I thank the member for Mundingburra for her question. Right in the middle of her electorate, of course, is that $110 million duplication of the Douglas ring-road—one of the major projects underway on the Bruce Highway. So that is great news for the people of Queensland who use the Bruce. Of course, when we released our Bruce Highway Upgrade Strategy earlier this year we wanted to know what Queenslanders thought about it. We wanted their feedback on our plans—our plans for 60 major projects to improve safety; capacity and flood protection right across the state; our plans for 10 proposed ring-roads, bypasses and deviations; our focus on six key regional economic hubs of Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Gladstone, Gympie and the south-east. We heard from commuters, truckies, businesspeople and residents up and down the length of the highway. About 500 people attended 13 forums across the state and there were almost 6,000 hits on our website. These Queenslanders who provided valuable feedback know the Bruce Highway is the backbone of Queensland’s road network. The Bligh government knows that and that is why we are acting. In fact, every Queenslander knows it except for the LNP and Campbell Newman. They are so behind the times that they will not even reveal their plans for the Bruce Highway until six months after the election if they are elected. What I found extraordinary was the recent media release from the LNP candidate for Whitsunday. In relation to the Bruce Highway this gentleman says, ‘The LNP leader, Campbell Newman, has put his cards on the table.’ Campbell Newman might have his cards on the table but they are all blank when it comes to the Bruce Highway. They are blank when it comes to the Samford-Wardell intersection—a plan he promised to those residents almost two weeks ago. When it comes to taking action against those in the LNP for their part in the ‘dirt files’, his cards are blank. When it comes to cracking down on the culture of threats and intimidation in his own party, they are blank. He is a joke of a leader and he will not stand up for decency. Even the member for Callide knows that heads have to roll, but he is too soft to stand up to the faceless men of the LNP. The LNP’s far-north vice chairman, Richard Gibbons, has spoken out publicly telling WIN News in Cairns that he wants this O’Sullivan thug to stand down. It is clear what needs to happen. At the LNP love-in this weekend Campbell Newman must make sure that McGrath and O’Sullivan are not at the Sunday roast on Sunday night. They need to be roasted. Anything less is an admission from Campbell Newman and the faceless men in the LNP that they are a joke when it comes to standing up for the people of Queensland. (Time expired) Police Service, Resources Mrs MENKENS: My question is to the Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services. Will the minister rule out that regional police stations like those in the Burdekin will not have front-line police forced behind desks because of Labor’s 250 job cuts policy? Mr ROBERTS: Just as the member for Surfers Paradise obviously did not listen to my ministerial statement, the member for Burdekin obviously did not listen to the answer to the last question. Voluntary separation packages are being offered right across government—3½ thousand within a period of one year, as I understand it. Let us contrast that to what the LNP is offering: 12,000 a year, 36,000 over a term and cutting a billion dollars. This government has a significant and proud record of resourcing the Queensland Police Service. When you look back to the record of the National Party with the Police Service, there were low police numbers and high crime rates. Under this government, with increased resources and increased growth in staff and police officers, we have lower crime rates and higher police numbers. The voluntary separation package is voluntary. People can put up their hand and no-one will be forced out. The Police Service will manage that process across the service. There is a clear guarantee that there will be no reduction to the number of sworn officers. I do not know how many times I have to say that. We will continue to grow police numbers in the regions, in the urban areas and right across the state. We have increased police officers significantly over the last 10 years. Under the opposition there was one police officer for every 507 people. Under Labor there is one police officer for every 436 people. 27 Oct 2011 Questions Without Notice 3487

What that says is that there has been a substantial increase in the number of front-line officers out there addressing crime. What they are achieving as a result of having more officers out there addressing crime is significant reductions in the crime rates. I will say it again: a 20 per cent reduction in offences against the person and a 48 per cent reduction in crimes against property. These are significant achievements, and it is because the Labor government has substantially and significantly increased resourcing to the Queensland Police Service, and we will continue to do that.

Schoolteachers Mr WELLS: My question is to the education minister. I ask the honourable and learned gentleman: is he aware of any forthcoming events celebrating leadership and professional development among teachers? Is he additionally aware of any other significant events which might focus and be educative with respect to leadership? Mr DICK: I thank the honourable and learned gentleman for his question and his interest and advocacy when it comes to teachers in his electorate and his strong support for education. Along with parents, teachers play the most critical role in the learning pathway of a child as they move through a life of learning and education in Queensland. Tomorrow presents a very special day when we can recognise the outstanding teachers in Queensland, tomorrow being the day that Queensland celebrates World Teachers Day. It is an opportunity to say thank you to the 90,000 registered teachers in Queensland and to thank them for the great work they do in schools each and every day. The Bligh government is a strong supporter of teachers, providing very strong support for what they do. Some of the things we do in Queensland are to provide programs to support teachers with the rollout of the Australian curriculum—a big shift happening in Queensland next year. We have established centres of excellence for training teachers, and we have developed programs for leadership for the next generation of teachers including establishing the Queensland Education Leadership Institute—a new nation-leading body. There is another leadership body that will be meeting on the weekend. A government member interjected. Mr DICK: What is it? I will take the interjection. It is the LNP state conference. That will be held on the weekend and it will be an opportunity for others to stand up and show leadership. It is an important opportunity for someone—anyone—from the opposition to stand up and show leadership when it comes to the tactics of people like James McGrath, the author of the ‘dirt files’, and Barry O’Sullivan—‘Basher’ Barry, the standover merchant of the LNP, browbeating candidates. We know that the member for Southern Downs does not support it. He is the only one who spoke against the coup against the member for Surfers Paradise—the night of the long knives or, when it comes to Campbell Newman, it is actually the night of the short knives. The member for Southern Downs was the only person who stood up against that. He was the only person who said that the ‘dirt files’ were wrong. Hopefully, he will be heard. I am hoping that the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Callide—the man who is paid so handsomely by the people of Queensland to lead—will stand up. He will tell anybody who wants to hear—backgrounding journalists—that he does not support Barry O’Sullivan, or those tactics. He is out there in the corridors. He struts around here like a top dog. He has the opportunity on the weekend to have the courage of his convictions to stand up and be heard. Is he the top dog or is he a compliant little lap-dog in the lap of those outside this parliament who run and dictate to the members of the LNP in here—the McIvers, the McGraths, the O’Dwyers, the O’Sullivans, the people who are running the LNP? This is an opportunity for demonstrated leadership by Campbell Newman and the member for Callide. I look forward to what happens on the weekend at the LNP state conference.

Queensland Health, Payroll System Ms BATES: My question without notice is to the minister for ICT. Will the minister explain why after claims the Health payroll system has stabilised at a cost of $200 million a leaked email shows the cost of running the system will cost taxpayers another $19 million this year and a further $4.8 million every year after? I table the email.

Tabled paper: Copy of email, dated 22 June 2011, from Ms Natalie MacDonald at Public Works to Mr Tony O’Connell at Health, titled ‘PFP meeting this afternoon’ [5747]. Mr FINN: I would be delighted to have a look at that document that the shadow minister just tabled. In answering this question—once again, a question about the Health payroll system from the member opposite—I can confirm, as I have confirmed in this House, that the Health payroll system has, in fact, stabilised. I can confirm that significant work has been done, that the Health payroll system has been reported on, reported on and reported on. The figure of $209 million was provided and the extra figure of $10 million was provided in the estimates committee. So it has been well reported on. 3488 Questions Without Notice 27 Oct 2011

What I was interested in was hearing from the shadow minister what her policy might be and how she might address ICT issues should she be part of a government at the next election. I was interested in listening to the shadow minister’s address to the AIIA industry luncheon last Friday. It was full of gems. The first gem was, ‘ICT is complex and expensive.’ That was the first gem. Ms Bates interjected. Mr FINN: What was the second gem? ‘So the fact that an ICT project goes pear-shaped now and then should not surprise anyone.’ Of course it does not surprise anyone. Ms Bates interjected. Mr Bleijie interjected. Mr FINN: In answer to the interjection about why did I turn up— Mr Nicholls: What did you tell them? Mr FINN: I will answer the interjection of why I turned up. I turned up because I have turned up to all five since I have been a minister and I have addressed them myself. The other gem was, ‘The LNP government will not be an accountability free zone.’ But the beauty was this when it was all put into context: ‘We don’t know what we don’t know’—meaning ‘We don’t know’. But we do know what they know about. They know about the gathering of ‘dirt files’. They know about that. Ms Bates interjected. Mr FINN: They know about the bullying of candidates. They know about that. Ms Bates interjected. Mr FINN: They know about their Cairns candidate blaming women for being victims of rape and they do nothing. They do nothing about what they know about—nothing. Ms Bates interjected. Mr FINN: Campbell Newman knew about his million-dollar properties in Port Douglas. Ms Bates interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Minister, resume your seat. The member for Mudgeeraba, it is not a speech. An interjection is disorderly. The minister did take an interjection but this is highly disorderly. I call the minister. Mr FINN: It is all a question of leadership, Mr Speaker. There was another gem in the speech from the shadow minister and it was this: ‘We can’t play in first grade when industry sends us second or third tier executives as their representatives. So advise your CEOs and MDs that we want to engage with the decision makers, not three levels down in the hierarchy.’ To engage with an LNP government, you will have to be a CEO or you will have to pay $20,000 to go to lunch with them. It is the same old elitist tories. Electoral Act Mr O’BRIEN: My question without notice is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Local Government and Special Minister of State. Can the minister please inform the House if there are any provisions in the Electoral Act providing for the names of party leaders to be recorded in the Australian Electoral Commission? Can the minister update the House about any leadership issues in Queensland politics? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question. Public registration of political parties is dealt with under sections 70 and 71 of the Electoral Act. You need to indicate the party name and the registered officer and provide a copy of the party’s constitution and other prescribed information. There is not, however, a requirement for you to put down the leader of the political party in the parliamentary sense, and that is just as well because on the other side of the House there would be some dilemma about what would be written down and who would write it down, whether it would be Barry O’Sullivan or not. We have had 206 days of the Campbell Newman experiment in Queensland politics and already the alarm bells are ringing, already the oxygen masks have dropped in the airplane and they are tugging on them—in fact, many of them are pulling them out of the roof. We have had 31 sitting days. One of the things about parliament is that it is designed for oppositions to hold governments accountable. Not only have we actually reversed the leadership of the LNP; we have also reversed how parliament is run. On 22 March we had Campbell Newman and the LNP party machine working to oust the member for Surfers Paradise. On 23 March we had the member for Callide being defended for being paid as leader but not being the leader. Then on 24 March we had Campbell Newman’s comments that traffic congestion was more important than health and education. On 5 April, during the next sitting week, we 27 Oct 2011 Questions Without Notice 3489 had Campbell Newman’s failure to endorse Jeff Seeney as Deputy Premier. On 6 April we had a $770 million tunnel in receivership and a bicycle scheme that no-one uses. Then on 7 April they were in here defending Newman’s announcement that LNP policies are null and void. On 10 May it was ‘cash for access’, and they were defending the $3,750 for cheap seats. On the next day they were defending the privatisation of Gladstone port. On the day after that they were defending John Brent getting disendorsed. Then we waited a couple of weeks until 24 May, and they were defending Newman’s record on rates in the Brisbane City Council and inflation. On the sitting day after that, at regional parliament, he went off his brain about being called a Tasmanian. Then on 26 May members would remember that they were having to defend him about regional debt in the Brisbane City Council. It continued: on 14 June, the tunnels were going broke; on 15 June, comparing himself to Mal Meninga; the next day, the same thing; on 17 June, $400 million out of the Sunshine Coast Hospital; on 2 and 3 August, ‘Captain Hindsight’; on 4 August, iron triangle; on 23 August, Chief Scientist, saying he will decide the science; then on and on and on. I say to members opposite: every day you are in here, there is another stuff-up by him that you have to defend. They have got on the Campbell Newman bus, but they found out that it is a bus being driven by Freddy Krueger and they cannot get off. He is driving them and they are in the front. Freddy Krueger is flashing his eyes and they are heading for the abyss. They are all going to go over chanting, ‘Can-do Campbell’ on the way. Water Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr Cripps interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That comment was uncalled for. The honourable gentleman had seen me before he started. Mr DICKSON: My question is to the Minister for Energy and Water Utilities. Will the minister confirm there has been a meeting between water authorities to discuss merging? Is it a fact that Labor is now adopting the LNP policy to address the water debacle in Queensland? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the member for the question. There is no policy or action by this government to further merge the water entities beyond what has been undertaken to date. We merged water entities from 23 down to the current number of five. That is based on delivering on recognised efficiencies to put downward pressure on water prices after a record investment in upgrading capital works to ensure that South-East Queensland was drought proof both now and well into the future. The only one who has been talking about that matter, as I understand it, has been Campbell Newman. He continues to misrepresent his participation and agreement with the direction taken by this state government in rationalising the distribution and retailing of water for South-East Queensland. Despite pages and pages of documents that he has signed over the years supporting the state government’s efforts to rationalise water retail and distribution in South-East Queensland, he now walks away from his participation and agreement in that process that has delivered for the first time absolute water security for one of the fastest growing regions in Australia. But of course there is another element to LNP policy when it comes to the future of utilities, and that of course is the unstated policy to privatise electricity. On the record the shadow Treasurer—the person who seeks to hold the financial reins of this state in his hands after the next election—has said that he wants to see the poles and wires—that is, Ergon and Energex—sold off and he has supported our reforms to the electricity industry in this state separating the retail arm. He is on the record calling on this government to go the whole hog and sell the poles and wires. Mr DICKSON: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, it was a reasonably tight, short and sharp question. It had nothing to do with electricity. I still have not had a yes or no answer from the minister. I think he is not answering the question. Mr ROBERTSON: I am happy to restate the answer to your question. Mr SPEAKER: I will just rule on the point of order first. I would ask the minister to stick to the terms that were asked. I call the minister. Mr ROBERTSON: What the people of Queensland need to know is what is going to be the future of the energy industry in this state under a proposed LNP government. Will it go down the path, as stated in this chamber only a couple of years ago by the shadow Treasurer, that we should sell the poles and wires, that we should privatise Ergon and that we should sell Energex? The party— Mr ELMES: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, the question was about the amalgamation of water utilities and I would ask you to rule on relevance. Mr Lucas interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Attorney-General will cease interjecting. I would ask the minister to stick to, under the standing orders, the relevance of the question. 3490 Questions Without Notice 27 Oct 2011

Mr ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker, I am happy to. The question was about the future of utilities in this state, and that is exactly what I am talking about. The people of Queensland need to know that the future of the energy industry in this state—the future of Ergon, the future of Energex—has a huge question mark over it under Campbell Newman. Tobacco Mrs SCOTT: My question is to the Minister for Health. Can the minister please inform the House if there are any threats to Queensland’s position as a world leader on tobacco control? Mr WILSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. Labor has a very proud record on tobacco control. Queensland’s bans on smoking within restaurants and cafes are stronger than New South Wales, Victoria, New York, Paris and London. Our bans on advertising tobacco at the cash register were recently introduced and we have also commenced a new program—the 13QUIT advertising campaign—to help Queenslanders kick the habit. We also supported federal Labor’s plain packaging legislation, the first of its kind in the world, and Queensland smoking rates are declining significantly, down to 17 per cent of Queenslanders. That is a record that we can truly be proud of. Under Labor Queensland has a strong, consistent, evidence based policy on tobacco control. Let me contrast that with the LNP and its shameful record on tobacco control. When we introduced it, LNP MPs criticised the ban on smoking in cars. They also spoke out about the introduction of our bans on advertising at the point of sale in the recent debate. The shadow minister in that debate tried to delay the introduction of the tobacco advertising bans and the LNP opposed plain packaging. We now know why the LNP has taken that position: because it is taking money from big tobacco, and I table a disclosure from the ECQ relating to the $6,250 that it has taken from big tobacco. Tabled paper: Electoral Commission of Queensland, Disclosure return—Donor to registered political party in the name of British American Tobacco Australia Ltd [5748]. The backroom boys of the LNP are running the LNP, and they are involved in a deadly merry-go- round when it involves funding from big tobacco to determine their policy. The LNP backroom boys pay Campbell Newman’s mortgage. He gets paid $12,000 a month, and part of that goes to his mortgage. Where does the money come from? Big tobacco and other unprincipled companies funding its policies. O’Sullivan and McIver are the ones dictating what Campbell Newman does and what he stands up for, but he does not stand up for anything. There is the LNP conference on the Gold Coast this weekend. We know that the Leader of the Opposition says that O’Sullivan and McIver should go. We need to know that Campbell Newman has got some spine, has got some guts and has got some moral fibre where he is prepared to stand up at that national conference and say, ‘O’Sullivan and McIver have got to go.’ That is what he should say. We need to see Campbell Newman do that—stand for what is morally right and not stand for big tobacco and those who pay the piper. Tourism Queensland, Board Mrs STUCKEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Tourism, Manufacturing and Small Business, and I ask: why did the minister bypass Tourism Queensland’s board and outsource the next round of recruitment for positions of retiring board members to KPMG at a cost of $56,000? Was it to ensure that one of her Whitsunday mates was appointed to the board? Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on my right will cease interjecting. I am on my feet. Ms JARRATT: I welcome the question from the member opposite. It has been some time since she has asked me a question about any of the areas in my portfolio. In relation to the member’s question, let me say this: there are 10 positions on the Tourism Queensland board and all board positions were renewed in July of this year on a short-term basis while applications were sought for persons interested in taking up those positions. This process was undertaken in accordance with the Queensland government’s Cabinet Handbook and I am really pleased to say that what it revealed was an enormous interest from the tourism industry and community in taking up a position on the Tourism Queensland board. Mrs Stuckey interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Currumbin, I am not going to have a running commentary every time a minister is asked a question. The minister is answering the question and there is no offence in the minister’s answer so far. The minister has the call. Ms JARRATT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will be delighted in the coming days to make an announcement about the members of the board of Tourism Queensland who are doing an enormous job in what has been one of the most difficult years for the industry in living memory. As I get out and about around Queensland, I see how this industry has shown courage and is fighting back from what has been an extraordinarily difficult time. The industry knows that this government is right behind it by announcing additional money and funding to more than double the amount of funding for events tourism in this state. 27 Oct 2011 Questions Without Notice 3491

We are going to ensure that, with the help of the industry, it is going to come back better than ever. I am pleased to say that the September school holidays showed positive indications that the industry is back on its feet. Right across the state we had much better accommodation rates. The real question about tourism at the moment is in relation to the LNP state conference being held on the Gold Coast—one of our great tourism regions. I do not think that the so-called leader of the opposition is the only person who will be in question during that time. I have a tweeter calling themselves the ‘LNP Insider’ saying that perhaps the days of the shadow minister are indeed numbered. This tweeter said that Jann Stuckey will never be the minister for tourism in an LNP government. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The minister will refer to the honourable member by her correct title. Ms JARRATT: Mr Speaker, I am quoting from a tweet. Is that allowable? Mr SPEAKER: Yes, but you will refer to the honourable member by her correct title. Ms JARRATT: The tweeter said that the shadow minister will never be minister for tourism in an LNP government. Just ask the member for Clayfield! (Time expired) Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: The House will come to order.

Manufactured Homes in Residential Parks Ms CROFT: My question without notice is to the Minister for Community Services and Housing and Minister for Women, and I ask: can the minister please advise the House as to what is being done to protect homeowners in manufactured home residential parks? Ms STRUTHERS: I commend the member for working with Fred Harris, the chair of the homeowners’ association, in drawing attention to this very important issue. The Bligh government will change legislation to protect mobile home owners from the extra fees that have been added to electricity bills by some residential park owners. Hundreds of dollars have been added to homeowners’ utility bills by the unfair charging of administrative, service and meter-reading fees, and we are going to stop this unacceptable practice. We will change the Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act 2003, effectively closing a loophole that saw park owners double dipping—slugging pensioners and others on fixed incomes with additional fees and charges. Park owners can no longer exploit homeowners. Instead, they can recoup any reasonable cost of their electricity network through site rentals. This is upfront and transparent. This amendment is just the first step in a review of the industry with further consultation to follow asking for feedback on ways to support the growth of more residential parks, improved tenure and termination agreements for residents, and ensure residents are accessing state government electricity rebates. The Bligh government sticks up for those who are vulnerable. We stick up for those who endure discrimination. We stand in stark contrast to the LNP. Its members have dismissed civil unions as a distraction. Labor sees civil unions as a way to legitimise a legitimate attraction, a legitimate love. The shadow minister for community services encourages people to grow out of homosexuality by ringing a religious helpline. Has Campbell Newman challenged her? The answer is surely no. The candidate for Cairns, Gavin King, says women are partly to blame for rape. Has the leader of the opposition, Mr Newman, challenged him? No! Mr ELMES: I rise to a point of order. The question was very precise. It talked about homeowners and residential parks. Mr Speaker, I would ask you to rule on relevancy again. Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those on my right will cease interjecting. The honourable member had the call. The member for Barron River interjected the whole time. When I call on somebody, have the respect for the person I have called upon. The minister was asked a pretty precise question. I would ask the minister to stick to that under the standing orders. Ms STRUTHERS: I am talking about how the Labor Party stands up for vulnerable people, how we stand up against discrimination. Gavin King is blaming the police for his comment. How disgraceful is that? Has Campbell Newman challenged him on that? No! The LNP bullyboys continue to bully their own. Is Campbell Newman standing up to the bullyboys in the boys club? No! Is Campbell Newman a weak leader? The answer must surely be yes. This morning I saw on social media a comment made to Campbell Newman. A challenge was being thrown out to him, and it said, ‘Watch out for the pink army.’ Campbell Newman has a fight on his hands and it is not just with us. 3492 Building Boost Grant Bill 27 Oct 2011

Gladstone Electorate, Health Services Mrs CUNNINGHAM: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. This government continues to recognise the value of the Gladstone region for industrial development but has failed to ensure appropriate health and affordable housing infrastructure. Will the minister show concern for the community and hospital staff by investing in additional services at Gladstone rather than accepting this current decline and cancellation of service provision? Mr SPEAKER: The minister has one minute. Mr WILSON: I accept and recognise the question from the honourable member. I do not accept the premise of her proposition that we are accepting the decline of services at the Gladstone Hospital. We want to make sure that the health service planning that does take place for Gladstone caters not only to the present service provision that the Gladstone community is entitled to have but also to the growth over the next five to 10 years. There is important work being done now, as the honourable member knows, to identify the best service planning for the future, and that will take place. However, Gladstone Hospital does not exist in isolation. It exists as part of a network of hospitals, including the Rockhampton Hospital and others. They are working as a network. The objective is to provide the best-quality health service in that region. The challenge is identifying what further services might be able to be appropriately applied to Gladstone and we will continue to work on that task. (Time expired) Mr SPEAKER: I think I owe the honourable gentleman from Barron River an apology. There was a noise up there and I pinged him. He was apparently not the offender. I do apologise for that. What I am after now is the offender. The time for question time has ended.

BUILDING BOOST GRANT BILL Resumed from 8 September (see p. 2921).

Second Reading Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Acting Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development and Trade) (11.05 am): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. I want to note in particular that the Finance and Administration Committee has, in fact, reported upon this bill and recommended that it be passed. It has drawn particular attention to clause 18 of the bill for which I want to provide an explanation as well as table the response that I have provided to the committee since its report. This matter raised by the Finance and Administration Committee relates to circumstances where the transaction is between related parties. Obviously, what is being proposed here is for an ex gratia payment arrangement. Therefore, I would like to table both the response and the guidelines that detail the way in which that ex gratia payment will be provided in order to meet the intent of the Finance and Administration Committee in its report. Ultimately, it is not feasible to provide the amendment as the committee requested. However, this arrangement will mean that the policy goal it was seeking—that is, bona fide circumstances between related persons—is able to be dealt with through an ex gratia payment. That, ultimately, is the most administratively efficacious way to deal with this issue as opposed to the amendment as requested, which would have the potential unintended consequence of not being able to meet circumstances where, in fact, the transaction was not a genuine and bona fide transaction between related parties. Other than that, I welcome the Finance and Administration Committee’s report to this bill. It is a key budget initiative. It is one that has been, to this point, derided by the opposition. I hope that today it is one that can enjoy the benefit of support from both sides of the House as a key initiative to support the housing sector in this place. Tabled paper: Finance and Administration Committee: Report No. 4—Building Boost Grant Bill 2011—Government Response, and attachment titled ‘Guidelines for ex gratia assistance for related party transactions’ [5749]. Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11.07 am): This morning the Treasurer threw out a challenge for us to support this legislation. Of course we will be supporting the legislation and allowing it to pass through the House as we supported it when the concept was introduced by the government in the budget. We are, of course, obliged to support it because we want to see something done to help the housing and particularly the construction of housing industry in Queensland—an industry that has been driven to the brink of despair by this Labor government. So anything that can be done sensibly in order to advance the interests of one of the mainstays—one of the four pillars that the Treasurer so roundly condemns—we will support. 27 Oct 2011 Building Boost Grant Bill 3493

There is no doubt that the housing and construction industry is doing it tough right now in Queensland. In fact, only today a report has been released by the Property Council of Australia Queensland division and the ANZ bank—a joint report, their inaugural report—which states that confidence is yet to capture mining investment. It goes through some of the facts and figures and some of the concerns here in Queensland. It is important to list some of those numbers, particularly as we have been hearing from this government and the Treasurer about how the good times are coming. Certainly, we are seeing an increase in investment, particularly in manufacturing and construction around the resources sector. Unfortunately, that is where the bulk of the money is going and it is not flowing through to those other parts of the Queensland economy that have been ignored and forgotten by this long-term Labor government. When we look at the media release that came out we see that the comments are quite good. For much of the past decade we have enjoyed a leading position alongside Western Australia as the country’s prosperous growth states. But we know that the government lost the AAA credit rating. It went bust in a boom and frittered away the proceeds of the last mining boom. The report goes on to say— But now, alarmingly, we find that WA has left us behind and confidence across the industry has waned to be more aligned with the southern states. Queensland sits in fourth place behind NSW on the Property Industry Confidence Index ...

... Tellingly 14.5% of Queensland respondents expect their staffing levels to decrease over the next 12 months. In Victoria and NSW 15.2% and 12.5% of respondents respectively share this view. Compare this to WA where only 5.2% of respondents expect their staffing levels to fall and you get a sense of the overall trend that emerges—Queensland’s property industry is not confident that the mining boom will translate to the broader economy. At about 9.30 this morning the Treasurer tabled Queensland’s annual economic report. Although I have not had an opportunity to go through all of it in detail, I was able to look at the dwelling investment figures on page 9 of that document. They show a decline, for the fourth consecutive year, in dwelling investment in Queensland—a decline of 12.9 per cent in 2010-11. New dwelling construction is down 17.9 per cent and renovation activity is down 6.8 per cent. The report refers to low housing affordability. The first home owner boost has fallen off and that has had an impact. We are seeing finance approvals for non-first home buyers fall by as much as 16.3 per cent. The other side of the story of this legislation is the increase in stamp duty that is payable because the principal place of residence concession is now no longer available. Just a few years ago one could travel throughout Queensland—and, in fact, in the south-east you could drive from the Tweed via Brisbane to Gympie—and lose count of the number of construction sites busy with activity and purpose as builders got on with building the Queensland dream, a person’s home. Now along that same stretch one sees ‘for sale’ signs, ‘for lease’ signs and vacant building lots. It does not matter whether one is on the Gold Coast—and the member for Surfers Paradise will no doubt have some very telling figures in his electorate—the Sunshine Coast or in Townsville, if you are outside of those resource areas the construction industry, particularly the residential construction industry, is doing it tough. Along that same stretch from the Tweed via Brisbane to Gympie, the hammers, the saws and the power tools have fallen silent and the sense of confidence and opportunity that seemed to embody Queensland has now disappeared from those places. These recent economic reports are often far removed from the real impact that an industry, once booming but now in a painful adjustment, has on the individuals and families who rely on it to pay the mortgage, put food on the table or send the kids to school. On 11 October the National Australia Bank’s monthly business survey said that Queensland’s business conditions were among the weakest in the nation. In construction, trading conditions, profitability and employment conditions continued to go backwards, according to the NAB. On 12 October, the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ latest housing finance data showed that the expected rebound in construction of new dwellings for August never happened, with fewer housing finance approvals in August than in June. On 19 October, Deloitte Access Economics’ business outlook report stated— The long hoped for recovery in housing construction has turned to ashes. The Deloitte report confirmed that falling house prices and a drop in rental growth, along with a decrease in population growth, meant that Queensland’s housing construction sector was ‘still losing altitude’. On 24 October, CommSec’s State of the States report said that housing finance in Queensland is down 24.6 per cent on our decade average number, while dwelling starts were not only 30.5 per cent below decade averages but also 17.9 per cent down on a year ago and, in fact, the worst result in the country. It is clear that the housing construction industry, the people who are employed in it and the people who rely on it for incomes are doing it tough in Queensland. I am not sure that the policy directions taken by this government will alleviate that pain. When we look at the purpose of this bill, the Building Boost grant is designed to stimulate the housing sector by increasing the affordability and supply of housing and, in turn, encourage more job opportunities in the housing construction industry—something that we 3494 Building Boost Grant Bill 27 Oct 2011 would all hope would occur. The grant is applicable over six months until the end of January from 1 August for the purchase of a new home or a contract to build a new home, or for an owner-builder, or the purchase of a new home off the plan for a home valued at less than $600,000. I know that there will be people who make some comments in relation to that limit of $600,000 and whether that is an appropriate limit for this type of grant with this type of policy prescription and this type of policy outcome. There are some comments about whether those numbers are realistic in terms of clearing old stock, which was also one of the purposes of this grant—that is, to move old stock off the market to encourage new stock to be built. The bill that we are debating today comes some four months after the announcement by the Treasurer of the plan and clarifies the detail of the administrative arrangements needed to ensure that the eligibility criteria are being met. I note that on the day of the delivery of the budget and the day of the announcement of the Building Boost it was not clear what the arrangements were. It was not clear whether anyone would be able to apply for it. It was not clear whether it would apply to investors only. It was not clear whether it would apply to home owners and occupiers only. There was no detail surrounding it. It was some considerable time before Treasury and the Office of State Revenue got their minds around how this would be able to be done. It was, in fact, policy on the run. I note in the Finance and Administration Committee’s report that, from the Commissioner of State Revenue’s point of view, the powers of investigation and the other powers that are vested in the bill are necessary in order to ensure that the grant is paid to the right people in accordance with the government’s policy. It is, I guess, perturbing to have these amounts being paid out without the policy parameters for those payments being set. I have, of course, said that it smacks very much of policy on the run. In order to ensure that those payments are made, that they are made appropriately, that the Commissioner of State Revenue and the Office of State Revenue do have the ability to track it and make sure that taxpayers’ money is not wasted but is directed to the delivery of the outcomes being sought, we will, of course, be supporting the legislation on the way through. We do not, however, believe that it is prudent policy to announce and begin administering taxpayer funds of up to potentially $114 million without having established the appropriate oversight and framework to ensure that those funds are not being misappropriated or misused. It is very poor practice and a very poor discipline from a Labor government that has a very long history of mismanaging taxpayers’ money. The Treasurer certainly cannot argue that he woke up on the eve of delivering the 2011-12 state budget to discover that the bottom of the housing industry had fallen out completely. The drop in activity has been evident since the GFC and a prudent, planned approach to rolling out the policy could have been achieved to ensure oversight was in place from day one, not day 87. We also must remember that it was not an original idea. It was the Northern Territory that announced a building bonus scheme in May this year to provide $10,000 to purchasers or builders of new homes that was valid for an eight-month period. Queensland’s Building Boost is a direct copy of the Northern Territory scheme except that its scheme will last for eight months and Queensland’s scheme will last for six months. The committee has made some notes in relation to the speed of the introduction of the legislation and has noted that a more concerted effort should have been made to ensure that the legislation was at least introduced prior to the commencement of the scheme. I acknowledge the political realities of the announcement of the budget and say that it may not have been necessary directly before the budget was introduced, but with the scheme starting on 1 August certainly one would think there would be some capacity to bring in the legislation in a timely fashion. It is also interesting to note—and to go back to my point in terms of the policy initiative—that, barely a fortnight after announcing the initiative, in the estimates process the Treasurer announced a change to the deadline for the construction of new homes purchased off the plan after consultation with peak property groups. To reiterate, the initiative has all the hallmarks of a policy that was introduced for political purposes, to give the government an announcement in an otherwise diabolical budget for the state’s finances—one that proposes a $4 billion deficit for the coming year and debt heading towards $85 billion—rather than a policy that is genuinely designed to lift the housing construction industry out of the doldrums. Industry groups are generally supportive of the creation of the Building Boost scheme because it is going to stimulate some construction activity work. But some industry groups, as I indicated, are concerned about the rollout of the $660,000 advertising campaign and the focus which is more on advertising the government’s boost rather than actually delivering the outcome. There were some very mixed messages coming out of the information provided to the committee. There was mixed information about where that advertising was targeted and the value of handing out, if you like, doctored-up $10,000 bills to other parts of the country. I guess we will see the outcome when the reports are finally in. 27 Oct 2011 Building Boost Grant Bill 3495

There was a recurring theme from the information that was provided to the committee during the committee’s public hearing process. Particularly in areas such as Brisbane, but more importantly the Gold Coast, the industry commented that the grant limit is insufficient to cover most of the available stock. If the policy is designed to improve confidence and encourage activity in the housing construction sector, there is an argument to be made that the cap should have been higher than $600,000. If the grant tips the scale towards a decision to purchase a new home then the value of that grant, regardless of the value of the prospective property, is repaid in the economic activity in the industry—that is, we get the stimulus from the construction work irrespective of the value of the property to which it is being applied. To date the approvals supplied to the committee indicate that the Gold Coast region has one of the lowest number of applications. We certainly do hope that that picks up. To date, reports from the industry indicate that that has not been a sizeable impact. There are some commentators who say that the value of the industry itself offering, for example, stamp duty concessions—that is, the industry and the developers paying the stamp duty on a new purchase—is having as much of an impact on the stimulation of the industry as is the Building Boost itself. As of 7 October—and this is from the figures supplied in answer to a question on notice that I asked—there have been 698 applications received and 117 applications approved. This followed a significant drop in the July housing finance approvals, which has been attributed to buyers holding off waiting for the commencement of the Building Boost. There was effectively from the date of the announcement of the program until the date of the commencement of a program a buyers’ strike. They said, ‘We will wait and see what happens on 1 August and then perhaps take advantage of the scheme.’ Yet, according to the ABS figures, that buyers’ strike has not resulted in a rush of applications to get the Building Boost from 1 August to 7 October. I mentioned earlier the approvals for August were lower than those for June. In those circumstances, I would ask whether the Treasurer could today give us an update on the number of applications and the number of approvals that have come through. I am sure people would like to know whether there has been a significant increase or if there has been some built- up demand that is now taking off, which we hope occurs. The Master Builders Association did a survey of their members on the impact of the Building Boost. Some 78 per cent of their members who responded to the survey said that it has had a nil impact and only two per cent said it had a positive impact. There were also issues raised with regard to the eligibility of applicants and related persons of the applicant. I not that the Treasurer has made a statement about this in his comments here. I have mentioned to him the concerns that there may be in relation to people being eligible for the grant but buying the property—that is, the property that would otherwise be eligible—from a relative. I believe the Treasurer has answered that issue. We accept that, by exception, people will be able to apply for an ex gratia payment from the Office of State Revenue if they can show that it is a genuine transaction entered into for the purposes of the legislation. If that is the case, could the Treasurer advise whether there have been any such applications made and the number of those. We will then obviously be able to work out the value. The point to be made here is that the purpose of this boost should have been to stimulate the economy, not to cap it at $600,000 on the basis that there is some inequality if the policy decision was driven by moving the construction sector into a higher rate of employment and investment. There are also some concerns about whether this grant is also sending the right messages to people who work in the construction industry. We know in Queensland that there is demand for a workforce in and around the resources sector. We know that there are areas of high unemployment such as the northern Gold Coast and Wide Bay and parts of Cairns. One of things, and I have said this before, that is somewhat confounding economists and those who look at the economy is why there is this stickiness and people are not moving as rapidly as would normally be the case, or as past history has indicated to be the case, to these new jobs in these new construction sectors. It could be that people are making lifestyle choices—that is, they would prefer to continue to live where they are rather than actually take up the offer of employment and higher wages—or it could be that a signal is being sent to those workers that there is some future hope for them in that industry and when it picks up they will have jobs there, so they are waiting to see what will happen. Is the right price signal being sent to workers in the construction industry? I do not think anyone in the industry is under any illusion that it is undergoing a fundamental adjustment following the housing boom of the last decade. In fact, our whole economy is undergoing some very fundamental structural adjustments as we come to grips with the resources boom. Right now there is a real opportunity for skilled construction labour in the resources industry. This is an industry that is desperate for those skilled workers and willing to pay top dollar and willing to train them up. I guess the concern is whether this policy could be inadvertently—the rule of unintended consequences—increasing that stickiness in the current skilled labour market. We certainly hope not. We certainly hope that those workers in the housing construction industry are given jobs as this boost takes off. 3496 Building Boost Grant Bill 27 Oct 2011

We have already seen the UDIA put out a report saying that more than 11,500 full-time construction jobs have been lost across the state in the past six months. In the August quarter alone, the UDIA report showed 7,500 jobs were lost. Master Builders have said that, in the last 18 months, 24,000 jobs have been lost across Queensland, with 10,000 construction jobs lost in Brisbane alone in 2011. With a decline in housing construction confidence and a slowing in the rate of population growth in Queensland, we need to encourage and assist skilled labour to transition to other parts of the economy that need workers to increase income and lead to greater demand for housing. The housing construction industry will not settle to a new equilibrium overnight; it will continue to stabilise over a period of time. That is something that I guess we all have to continue to work for. As well as the other structural changes that we have spoken about, as well as the increase in the principal place of residence stamp duty that is now payable in Queensland following this government’s budget, the industry must also contend with the shock next year of Labor’s carbon tax. I note that in the committee’s report the department has advised that the six-month eligibility and timing for the grant was determined by taking into consideration an anticipated recovery during 2012. The question we have to ask is: given that previous predictions of returns to growth in the housing construction area have proved to be somewhat optimistic, is this not also an optimistic prediction given the impacts that will be felt on the wider economy in the coming 12 months? It was interesting to note that industry groups estimated the impact of the carbon tax would add roughly $6,000 to $8,000 to the cost of an average house. In many respects, I am not sure that we will be seeing the economic recovery in the construction industry that I think we would all hope for. The other issue is whether the cost of this initiative—that is, the cost of this program at $140 million allocated in the budget, whether that is taken up or not—is being met by the increase in the stamp duty payable on the principal place of residence. We calculated that tax hike to slug homebuyers with an extra $7,000 in transfer duty on an average South-East Queensland home, devaluing the investment of hundreds of thousands of Queenslanders in their own homes and making it harder and more expensive for those people who want to trade up, trade down or move around the state. So, despite what the government might say and regardless of how it spins the facts, this is an increase in the stamp duty on the family home. For example, with an average home in Brisbane selling for $515,000 and with the average home being sold every seven years, the state government’s transfer duty will average out over that period to a cost of about $2,315 a year. That $2,315 a year is almost twice the cost of council rates. While this government might be able to keep adding bills to the Queensland mortgage, real families cannot continue to afford that increase and cannot get the loans in order to do so. It is interesting to note that again in its report the industry representatives believe that the changes to stamp duty have dampened confidence in the sector. These are not the words of the opposition. These are not the words of people who are standing on the outside. These are the words of the people who are actually involved in the delivery of the product and the construction of the product and the sale of the product. While we hope this policy works, while we support the implementation of this legislation, we have very real doubts about whether under this government the construction, and particularly the residential construction, sector will be able to get back on its feet, to employ again and to be one of the four pillars of the economy. Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (11.31 am): Today I rise to speak to the Building Boost Grant Bill 2011, which the opposition will be supporting. However, I need to express my concern regarding the depressed state of Queensland’s residential building industry. The government’s ill-considered and short-sighted Building Boost grant program is failing to kick-start this ailing industry and is falling well short of expectations. The reality is that the boost program is just a cynical PR stunt—a short-term sugar hit designed to cover the ugly facts that the government has permanently cut stamp duty concessions for homeowners. The Bligh government thinks it can blithely fool Queenslanders that it has done a good thing by scrapping stamp duty concessions and replacing it with a short-term boost. But, after January next year, the penny will drop and aspiring homeowners will realise that they have been had. The scales will fall from their eyes and they will see it for what it was—a cynical, short-term publicity stunt. Now, the great Australian dream will be put further out of reach for many more young families—all because of this debt- ridden government’s junkie-like addiction to taxes and charges. The Building Boost grant program is nothing but a dud, and industry already knows this. The Master Builders Association polled their members earlier last week and a staggering 78 per cent said that there has been no benefit at all from the so-called boost. The UDIA says that it will lead to further large job losses in the already hard-hit construction and building supply and manufacture sectors. The Master Builders Association is concerned that Queensland is three times ahead of any other state in the suicide rates for tradies and has instituted a program with great success called Mates in Construction to assist families and workers during these hard times. 27 Oct 2011 Building Boost Grant Bill 3497

I note firsthand from my contacts in the Gold Coast building industry that things are depressed and grim down there. Building applications are already substantially down, and now local builders and subbies face the harsh post-boost hangover in the new year with the prospect of an even worse industry downturn—all because of the Bligh government’s so-called boost. The trouble here is that the cash- strapped Bligh government is hopelessly addicted to taxes and charges. It has become a drug of choice. Sadly, it is the aspiring homeowners and the beleaguered building industry that will now have to pay the heavy cost. The government has been warned but it has not listened to industry, and it has not listened to the opposition’s warnings. Even federal Treasurer and Labor mate Wayne Swan has warned them how their obsession and overreliance on stamp duty tax is counterproductive and destructive, but he too has been ignored. If elected, the LNP will restore the stamp duty homeowner concession as a matter of priority, as announced by the deputy opposition leader and shadow Treasurer in his budget reply speech. This measure will help battling homeowners beat the rent trap and achieve the great Australian dream of ownership, and it will also give a fair dinkum permanent boost to stimulate a struggling building industry. The building and construction industry is currently under extreme pressure and is facing one of the largest downturns in development history. The LNP knows that the building industry is hurting and, whilst the Bligh government continues to blame everything on the global financial crisis, we in this chamber know that it has wasted the rivers of gold flowing from the mining boom in past years and is currently hanging its hat on an emerging coal seam gas industry to dig it out of the financial debt that it has placed this great state of Queensland in. As the shadow minister for the building industry, since assuming this role in April this year I have met with over 150 stakeholders. Unlike my Labor counterpart, who is missing in action, I am actively seeking engagement from the industry to assist in the formulation of LNP policy. I am a firm believer that the best policy is written by those who will have to implement it or those who have suffered from poor policy and planning in the past. It does not take a genius to realise that the building industry is on its knees in Queensland. It does not matter how the Treasurer tries to spin it: the fact remains that the construction industry is hurting. In a further sign of trouble facing Queensland’s beleaguered residential construction industry, figures released by the Housing Industry Association recently show new home sales have slumped yet again. These figures prove what we already know—that new home construction has fallen off badly throughout the state. Home construction is a cornerstone industry for Queensland, but, as the HIA points out, unparalleled weakness continues in the Queensland market. The great Australian dream of home ownership is fast disappearing under the Bligh Labor government, with building approvals crashing nearly 20 per cent in the past year and new home sales falling 8.5 per cent in July—even before state Labor’s new $7,000 tax on homes kicked in on 1 August. The Premier and the Treasurer try to blame the floods and storms for the downturn, but the HIA figures were for July, when new home construction should have been going gangbusters. Home construction was once a cornerstone industry for Queensland, but under this government it is in real trouble. In the inaugural quarterly Property Council/ANZ Industry Confidence Survey, released earlier yesterday, the question was posed— What does the property industry think of the carbon price? The property industry reflects general community views on the new carbon price. 49% oppose the tax, with 33% in favour and 18% neutral. Queenslanders and Western Australians were most negative, and Victorians most supportive. On top of this, federal Labor wants to give us this carbon tax that is going to add almost $7,000 to the cost of new home construction. Housing construction is already drowning under the tide of Labor’s higher business costs and taxes on everything from electricity to rego and fuel. And now the Premier has successfully killed off another pillar of the Queensland economy with her greedy tax grabs and cynical moves to abolish the long-held stamp duty concession and replace it with the six-month Building Boost grant program. The boost program is a short-term sugar hit and is yet to show any meaningful change in the building industry. Industry already knows that. That is why the building approvals in Queensland remain at preflood levels. And things will get worse after January when the Building Boost grant runs out and contactors will face a harsh New Year hangover—all because of the boost. The government has done nothing for the building industry. The Building Boost was meant to help the building industry, right? So how did the government come up with a $600,000 limit? The Master Builders say that a standard low-range house build is $350,000. So, if you can find a block of land for $250,000 anywhere between the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast, you are doing better than most. Had the government even bothered to check with the HIA and the MBA as to how many homes have 3498 Building Boost Grant Bill 27 Oct 2011 been built with this new boost? As a member of the Finance and Administration Committee charged with reviewing the Building Boost Grant Bill, I can assure the House that the Under Treasurer was stumped when I asked that simple question. How can you judge the success of a program if you do not even bother to consult with the industry three months into a program designed to stimulate the same industry? I can tell members that figures released following a question on notice from my colleague the member for Clayfield demonstrate that there had been only 117 homes approved as at 7 October out of 700-odd applications. To add insult to injury, the Bligh government spin doctors have also spent $660,000 on advertising the boost with no real dividend for the industry. Despite all the hype about the government’s Building Boost program, it has not counteracted Labor’s $7,000 stamp duty slug. The government has handed out over $1 million of the budgeted $140 million. When you look at the $660,000 that the Bligh government spent on promoting itself and the scheme, it is obvious that this program is more about short-term PR stunts and saving Labor’s political skin and not about fixing the problems in the residential construction industry. Furthermore, a lack of confidence in the Queensland construction industry had seen 7,537 full-time jobs lost in the three months to August. According to recently released figures from the UDIA, total construction job losses in the past six months has reached 11,627. I couple that with figures obtained from the Master Builders, as I said before, that showed that Queensland has a rate of suicide in construction workers three times higher than that of any other state. The fact that there is a suicide or attempted suicide every 2½ weeks is a sad indictment of this arrogant, out-of-touch, on-the-nose Bligh Labor government. The lack of sensible policies and high government taxes and charges are having a negative impact on this industry, which is traditionally one of the engine rooms of the Queensland economy. The Urban Development Institute of Australia has warned that the massive loss of jobs has put the building sector in a precarious stage—where poor decision making and poor policy could lead to even higher unemployment in this sector. The Bligh government has blundered with the removal of the $7,000 stamp duty subsidy, and this has also caused nervousness and uncertainty in the real estate sector. Queensland’s unemployment queues are getting longer and longer, with last week’s ABS figures cementing Queensland’s position as the unemployment capital of Australia. Reports released by the NAB, the Housing Industry Association and RP Data showed that the housing industry was in a sick state under the current tired 20-year Labor government. The reports showed that new home sales went backwards for two months and then only modestly recovered in August following the government announcement of the proposed Building Boost. If you look closer at these figures you can see that there has been a 14.2 per cent drop in building approvals for new homes and the rental market is down 0.5 per cent. All the government achieved was to make those intending to buy homes in June and July delay their decision by two months, with no net stimulus to building approvals overall. If the policy purpose of the Building Boost was to stimulate demand immediately, so far the Treasurer’s budget announcement has served only to kill demand in June and July, with only a modest recovery in August. Approvals were still below June 2011 levels. A range of professional bodies and commentators have made it clear that any benefit of the Building Boost had been counteracted by the Treasurer’s additional $7,000 stamp duty slug on family homes. At an inquiry into the Building Boost only last week, members of the panel interviewed included the HIA, Master Builders, REIQ and the UDIA, who all with one voice when asked when they would be concerned that the Building Boost had not been effective answered ‘now’. At this recent public hearing I asked representatives of those property industry peak bodies the following— The carbon tax has just been passed through the House of Representatives and the debate has been guillotined in the Senate by the Greens. Would you care to elaborate on what additional impost on construction this will have on the building industry that is already on its knees and do you feel that the building boost will be wiped out by the cost of a carbon tax on construction? Mr Temby from the HIA proffered the following response— Our organisation has done some fairly elaborate research on what the impact of a carbon tax might be on the cost of a new home. Our estimates are that it would be of the order of probably six to $8,000 on the average house. That is not going to happen on 1 July next year; that will happen over a period of time, and there are all sorts of responses that the market could make to that. A further question posed was— At what stage in this process, given that the building boost is due to finish in February, would you become concerned that it has not achieved its aims when you are already getting feedback from 78 per cent of your members saying that it has had nil effect? We have another three months basically into this process. When do you expect that we would see some benefit to the building industry? Mr Cuthbert from the MBA responded— I think I have said before that the next couple of months will be critical. Home owners are no different than those people seeking relief from the floods where on 29 and 30 June, the last two days for the application for the grant, the government got 850 applications. We may very well see a rush in December and January, but historically my view is that that is a relatively quiet time for construction activity because everyone knocks off. There are unique circumstances, but I still do not think in the overall picture the 10 grand is going to make a difference. 27 Oct 2011 Building Boost Grant Bill 3499

The concern that the stamp duty slug has offset the benefit of the Building Boost has been borne out in both the HIA and NAB reports. Queensland house prices dropped 1.7 per cent in the September quarter. Additional data from RP Data showed that many Queenslanders have negative equity in their homes and the situation was getting worse. According to RP Data’s latest report, twice as many people in the Sunshine State have negative equity in their homes, at 6.3 per cent, while the Australian average sits at 3.7 per cent. Queensland continues to lag behind the rest of the country and harebrained ‘rob Peter to pay Paul’ schemes like the Treasurer’s Building Boost are failing to help the ailing construction industry. Our economy is going in the wrong direction and Labor’s Building Boost has failed to increase these jobs and activity in the construction sector. It has fallen well short of expectations. The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ housing finance data for August 2011 showed that the expected rebound in construction of new dwellings for the month never happened, with fewer approvals in August than in June. Construction is one of the LNP’s four pillars to getting Queensland’s economy back on track. But those opposite have not listened to industry and they have not listened to the opposition’s repeated warnings. The trouble here is that the cash-strapped Bligh government is hopelessly addicted to stamp duty tax and, instead of decreasing it, they have done the opposite against all advice. The LNP has already committed to reintroducing stamp duty relief for family homes. The LNP believes in supporting, not selling out, Queensland’s residential building industry. In a further blow to the building industry, the introduction of the Waste Reduction and Recycling Bill leaves me shocked and concerned that the Bligh Labor government intends to add a further impost on the building and construction industry—an industry which has been brought to its knees by a government which has a history of waste, no idea of business practices and no thought to the added burden this new tax will bring to an already haemorrhaging building sector. Every time I drive the M1, I am flanked on all sides by tradies driving out of the Gold Coast, where work is almost at a standstill. This new industry waste tax is a business-destroying tax; it is not a levy. It is yet another hidden Bligh Labor government tax. It is a charge on landfill operators for each tonne of commercial and industrial waste or construction and demolition waste that is added to landfill. It will adversely affect the building industry. Did the government ever consider what effect this business- destroying waste tax would have on the industry? It is irresponsible for the Queensland government to go ahead with this waste tax in Queensland without understanding the full ramifications of a carbon tax. The LNP does have a vision for the building industry; we will work with them, not against them. We will listen to their concerns and tailor policies accordingly. The LNP, unlike the Labor Party, who have tax in their DNA, will work to ensure— Mr FRASER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order? Mr FRASER: For the record, the member is actually voting for the bill but speaking against it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Ms BATES: We will work to rid the industry of the burden of multiple layers of bureaucratic red tape such as the sustainability declaration, which was nothing more than a grab for Greens votes by Anna Bligh and her cohorts. We will strike a fair balance for the industry and homeowners with the BSA. Our policy announcements in the lead-up to an election will be the result of extensive community and business consultation. They will be costed and benefit all Queenslanders, unlike the Labor government, which tricked the industry into third-party endorsement for this failed Building Boost by not telling before the announcement that they were going to pull stamp duty concessions for the family home and apply yet another Bligh government tax. As the shadow minister for the building industry, I will work to ensure that the building industry portfolio has teeth and not just a title. I do note that the minister for the building industry is not even on the speaking list for this bill. A Campbell Newman-led Liberal National Party government will be fiscally responsible with a plan. Unlike the Labor government, which plans to plan, an LNP government plans to build. We will work hand in hand with the hardworking, long-suffering construction industry to enable Queensland to get on the move so that Queenslanders do not have to move to Victoria for a job. Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (11.46 am): I am a little confused in relation to the two previous speakers, the member for Mudgeeraba and the member for Clayfield. As the chair of the committee, I understand that the member for Clayfield was not present at any of the briefings or public hearings so I can forgive him for that, but I am quite surprised at the doom and gloom and negativity I just heard from a fellow member of the committee. I understood that the member had been in the committee briefings and hearings with me, yet we obviously have some different views in relation to what I thought we were hearing. I must say that I am surprised. It is all right to come into the House and speak against a particular— Honourable members interjected. 3500 Building Boost Grant Bill 27 Oct 2011

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Ryan): Order! Let us stop the interjecting across the chamber. Let us get through this debate and have a bit of decorum. I call the member for Ipswich West. Mr WENDT: I think it is unusual to support the bill and recommend in the report that it pass through the House and then come in here and speak the way the member for Mudgeeraba has. I have enormous respect for the member, but I am a bit surprised at the tack she has taken. That is something I suppose we can discuss at another time. To stimulate the Queensland housing market by assisting housing affordability, increasing the supply of housing and supporting employment in the housing construction industry, the Treasurer through the 2011-12 state budget announced the availability of a Building Boost grant of $10,000. This was for the purpose or construction of a new home in Queensland valued at less than $600,000 including land. It is important to remember that this is particularly relevant for those people who are young or just coming into the market. From that perspective, I can say that in the gallery above us are some young school leaders from Rosewood State High School. They are the type of people who will be looking forward to programs like this now and into the future to encourage them into and support them in this market. We all know that coming into this market, no matter how young or old you are, is very difficult. It has always been difficult, as it was even 30 or 35 years ago when I bought my home. From what I am aware of, the member for Moggill probably does not need any of this assistance—and good luck to him—but the reality is that many of us, particularly in my electorate, do need support like this. The Building Boost grant is available for eligible transactions undertaken between 1 August and 31 January 2012. These eligible transactions are written contracts to purchase a new home, written contracts to build a home and construction by owner-builders. I can advise that construction time frames apply for building contracts and owner-builders and that, following consultation with the industry, which was quite extensive, extended construction commencement and completion time frames will apply for all off-the-plan transactions, given the more complex nature of these particular projects. I am aware that the Building Boost grant is currently being paid under an administrative arrangement administered by the Office of State Revenue pending passage of the Building Boost Grant Bill 2011. As such, the bill will have retrospective effect to 1 August 2011 to give legislative effect to the administrative arrangements. The member for Clayfield discussed that before as well. Individuals, companies and trusts may be eligible for the Building Boost grant. However, individuals must be at least 18 years of age and an Australian citizen or permanent resident. While corporations and trustees are also eligible to apply, they must be a corporation or a trust that is substantially Australian owned, and I think that is fair. In addition, the Building Boost grant is available for first home buyers, homebuyers and investors alike. Specifically, first home buyers may now qualify for up to $17,000 in state government grants under the Building Boost grant and the First Home Owner Grant Scheme. I should also point out that these first home buyers do not pay any transfer duty on properties valued at less than $500,000 and, in addition, applicants may also benefit from the Commonwealth’s First Home Saver Account Scheme. In my electorate, first homes under $500,000—or even under $600,000 for that matter—are probably the predominant number. Although there are occupancy requirements, the purchaser need not live in the home themselves and may rent it to tenants or make it available to a family member. In addition, a person may claim more than one grant when purchasing separate new homes and may receive benefits under the National Rental Affordability Scheme in addition to the Building Boost grant, and I think that is a fabulous initiative. As members may be aware, the scheme for the Building Boost grant has been modelled to an extent on the First Home Owner Grant Scheme. However, unlike the First Home Owner Grant Scheme, the Building Boost grant does not require the applicant to reside in the home as their principal place of residence. As such, the absence of this condition required the inclusion of additional controls to ensure the policy objectives of the Building Boost scheme were met. However, the operation of these controls is modified in several cases where a Building Boost grant applicant is also eligible for a first home owner grant for that transaction. Also consistent with the arrangements for the First Home Owner Grant Scheme, applicants may apply for the Building Boost grant through their financial institution. As members would be aware, this has the advantage that the grant will be available at the settlement of a home purchase contract or the first progress payment on a building contract. It is important that interested parties know that applications or notices of intention to apply for the grant must be lodged with the Commissioner of State Revenue by 31 May 2012 unless the applicant is also claiming the first home owner grant. So there is that availability to put in the application after the end of this particular program. In this case, the Building Boost grant will generally be paid before completion of a transaction to allow the funds to be used for the completion of a contract or the cost of construction. If all eligibility criteria are not subsequently satisfied, applicants may have an obligation to notify the commissioner and repay the grant. Again, I think that is an appropriate scheme in this case. As members would appreciate, these requirements are important for ensuring the scheme’s integrity, and that is what we would all expect. 27 Oct 2011 Building Boost Grant Bill 3501

In its report into the Building Boost Grant Bill 2011, which was tabled on 18 October, the Finance and Administration Committee, after conducting a departmental and public hearing on the matter, concluded that the Building Boost grant scheme is helpful to and has been welcomed by industry, and the committee has recommended that the bill be passed. However, I can advise that, after further consideration of a matter suddenly arising the day before yesterday, it was agreed by the committee to write to the Deputy Premier and Treasurer to advise him of our concerns in regard to clause 18 of the bill, which discussed the issue of related parties being eligible for the grant. I am aware that the Deputy Premier and Treasurer has this morning clarified that situation in his speech and I will not continue on that matter. In regard to the public hearings and the public briefing, I can advise that on 6 October the committee met with officers from the Queensland Treasury, the Office of State Revenue and the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, who I felt gave an outstanding contribution to the understanding of the bill for the committee members. On 12 October, we also had a public hearing at Parliament House in the Dandiir Room, which was attended by the Master Builders Association of Queensland, the Housing Industry Association Queensland, the Urban Development Institute of Australia, the Property Council of Australia and the Real Estate Institute of Australia. A member from the Builders Labourers Federation was supposed to attend but I believe he was unable to get there on the day due to other commitments. All members of the committee greatly appreciated their attendance. We had a wide-ranging debate and I believe there was overwhelming support for this initiative on that day. I would now like to take a few moments to discuss the economic aspects of the bill and the potential regional issues that will be affected. As members know, the objective of the bill is to stimulate the Queensland housing market by assisting housing affordability, by increasing the supply of housing and by supporting employment in the housing construction sector. From my information, it is expected that the grant will provide the most significant boost to dwelling investment in the second half of 2011-12 and 2012-13—not in the first couple of months, as has been suggested by members opposite. This is through encouraging first home owners, other homeowners and investors to sign a contract during the period of 1 August 2011 to 31 January 2012 to build a new home. The latest information available to me would seem to indicate that the total number of dwelling approvals, by trend, in Queensland increased by 1.6 per cent in August 2011—the fourth consecutive monthly increase. While total approvals have now increased 5.1 per cent since the recent trough in April 2011, they remained 27.7 per cent below the last peak recorded in February 2010, which is significant. This information indicates that the recent improvements have solely been driven by private other dwelling approvals—that is, units, town houses, et cetera—which are up 27.4 per cent over the four- month period, while private house approvals continued to weaken. The number of finance approvals for owner occupied dwellings—again, based on the trend—in Queensland increased 1.4 per cent in August 2011. While investor finance commitments—in original terms—in Queensland totalled $2.6 billion in the August quarter of 2011, which is a 19.8 per cent improvement since the recent trough in March this year. On the other hand, I can report that the private dwelling approvals in Queensland in 2010-11 totalled 26,435, which is a fall from 2009-10 and is almost 40 per cent down from its peak in 2007-08. It is considered that a large part of this decline reflects lower population growth, but I can advise that the state government considers that the temporary nature of the Queensland Building Boost will encourage buyers to commit to build new dwellings, thereby providing support to the industry during a period of particular softness. I think it would also be useful to put on the record the number of grant applications received up to 21 October. The member for Clayfield, in fact, commented on it before and I think he mentioned a figure of 698. I have the latest figures from 21 October, which is about six days ago, and I can advise that across Queensland 992 grant applications have been received—nearly 1,000—and I will go through the individual regions for those. In Brisbane, there were 368 applications; in the Darling Downs region, 78; in the Fitzroy region, 77; in the Sunshine Coast region, 75; in the Wide Bay-Burnett region, 74; in the Mackay region, 68; in the northern region, 65; in the far-north region, 65; in the Gold Coast region, 54; in the West Moreton region, 22; the balance of the state was five; and there were 41 not assigned, so there must be more information coming from them. This goes to show that no-one expected this particular program to reap immediate results—and that was borne out through the submissions at both the public hearing and the public briefing. It will see an increase over time and that is to be expected. In conclusion, I recommend this report to the House. I also commend the other committee members who had a very difficult time because of the number of other bills we were dealing with at the time. Their commitment to and support of not only me but this whole process has been outstanding. I really appreciate the support they have given me particularly. Our research team, who I have spoken about previously and I will not stop talking about them—Debbie, Jo, Marilyn and Lyn—have again done an outstanding job. Mr Stevens: Hear, hear! 3502 Building Boost Grant Bill 27 Oct 2011

Mr WENDT: I take the interjection from the member for Mermaid Beach, who is the deputy chair. I think we could put our committee team up against any team not only in Queensland but across Australia— Mr Stevens: And back. Mr WENDT: And back. They have done an outstanding job and I cannot say enough about their commitment to this particular committee. Without these teams, I believe all committees, and particularly ours, would struggle enormously to progress through the time frames we have. Considering the time, I commend this bill to the House. Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (11.59 am): I rise to support the Building Boost Grant Bill 2011. To stimulate the Queensland housing market by assisting housing affordability, increasing the supply of housing and supporting employment in the housing and construction industry, the 2011-12 state budget announced the availability of the Building Boost grant of $10,000 for the purchase or construction of a new home in Queensland valued at less than $600,000, including land, and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Treasurer on this initiative. The Building Boost grant is available for eligible transactions undertaken between 1 August 2011 and 31 January 2012. As it was not possible to enact legislation before the scheme’s commencement, the Building Boost grant scheme is operating under an administrative arrangement pending the passage of this bill. Certain provisions of the bill will have retrospective effect to 1 August 2011 to cover the period of administrative arrangement. Other provisions commence on assent where it would be inappropriate or not possible for them to commence retrospectively. The broad effect of the retrospectivity is beneficial, as the bill provides the legislative authority for the payment of the grant. The legislation also provides certainty regarding eligibility for the grant, the basis for applying for and paying the grant, and the rights and obligations under the scheme. A key consideration in developing the Building Boost grant scheme and the bill has been ensuring that rights and liberties are not adversely affected and obligations are not imposed retrospectively. An important element in this has been ensuring that potential applicants are well aware of their rights and obligations when deciding whether or not to enter into a transaction when claiming the Building Boost grant and afterwards. This has been achieved by the development and publication of a special purpose website of a comprehensive set of frequently asked questions addressing eligibility for the Building Boost grant. Also, the statutory declaration application form includes detailed information about eligibility, applicants’ obligations to provide correct information and to repay the grant if incorrectly received, and the liability and penalties for offences. Transitional provisions in the bill ensure that there is no detrimental effect from its retrospective commencement. In particular, obligations to notify the Commissioner of State Revenue where the grant has been incorrectly received are extended to 28 days after assent. Also, a person does not commit an offence in providing false or misleading information before assent but will commit an offence if the information is not correct within the 28 days after assent. The time frame for existing review rights is also extended. In its report into the Building Boost Grant Bill 2011 tabled on 18 October, the Finance and Administration Committee, of which I am a member, noted that the introduction of the bill following the Building Boost scheme’s commencement on 1 August raised no fundamental legislative principle issues in relation to its retrospective effect. As with all revenue legislation administered by the Commissioner of State Revenue, the bill also includes powers for investigation. These powers have been modelled on those in the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000 and the Taxation Administration Act 2001. Adoption of consistent powers for the bill ensures that authorised officers may effectively exercise these powers for investigations involving compliance with more than one act at the same time. These investigation powers are necessary to ensure that all information and documents are available to allow proper determination of an applicant’s eligibility for the Building Boost grant. This is particularly so given that, in most cases, the Building Boost grant is paid before completion of a transaction and the satisfaction of all eligibility criteria. Finally, as mentioned, the bill provides for a transition of the Building Boost scheme from an administrative arrangement to legislation. Given this and the limited opportunity to progress any legislative amendment of the bill following enactment and before eligibility of the grant ends, the bill also includes a transitional regulation-making power. This transitional regulation-making power and any transitional regulation made under it will expire one year after assent. Having dealt with the technical matters of this bill, I want to comment briefly on the work undertaken by the Finance and Administration Committee with regard to the bill. The committee conducted a public hearing on 12 October 2011. The hearing was attended by Mr Graham Cuthbert from the Master Builders Association, Kathy MacDermott from the Property Council of Australia, Nicola McDougall from the REIQ, Duncan Maclaine and Brian Stewart from the UDIA, and Warwick Temby from HIA Queensland. I note that the committee in its deliberations and its report recommends that the bill be passed. The committee heard the concerns of the industry that the construction and housing industry workforce had suffered following the GFC and that the industry was still struggling to bounce back despite the efforts of government in this regard. 27 Oct 2011 Building Boost Grant Bill 3503

The member for Mudgeeraba continuously talks down the efforts of the government and also believes that the GFC did not exist and that industries that have suffered because of the GFC have only done so because of what the government has done. I note that our efforts particularly on the Gold Coast prior to the GFC in terms of expenditure of money for our investments have also supported the member’s electorate with new schools and funding for sporting groups in her electorate. There were also our commitments to build the light rail project and the new university hospital. Yet suddenly the member for Mudgeeraba claims that the government’s efforts had, in effect, had an impact on industry. It was noted by the committee hearing attendees that in fact it was the GFC that had had a significant impact on the industry, particularly the lack of confidence that people had during that time in terms of investment. It was noted that all attendees considered that the Building Boost concept was indeed welcome news to the industry when announced by the Treasurer. The report acknowledges that some members did raise concerns about the practical implementation and the take-up of the boost being challenging. However, the industry also took that opportunity to request that the dollar limit of the Building Boost grant be increased from $600,000. It also commented that it had some concerns in relation to the related party exclusions. The average price of many houses built in Queensland is around the $430,000 mark, so the Building Boost grant dollar limit is well above that. There would be people who live in my electorate who would certainly be looking at potentially purchasing a property that is around the $430,000 mark. Another purpose of this grant was to move stock that had been sitting there for some time. This grant is a great incentive for people to consider buying now if they are thinking of buying a new home, an investment property or they are a first home owner. Whilst the industry was persistent with its views in this regard, the industry also commented that the Building Boost would contribute to people’s confidence in terms of sitting down and making a decision that they may have put off for years. That was the intent of the Building Boost concept that the government was trying to achieve. I note that the member for Mudgeeraba continues to talk down the industry, talk down economic growth in Queensland and talk down the Building Boost grant. However, I note that the LNP is actually voting for the bill. Given that the member is the shadow minister for that sector, her comments concern me, particularly as a member from the Gold Coast. We should be out there talking to people, promoting this opportunity to them and giving them the right information. I have been to the website and I commend the department on the work that it has done with regard to it. It is very easy to navigate. It is very easy to read about the eligibility and it is very easy to identify contacts. It lists the details of the banks that know all about the scheme. It is very easy to use. I would challenge the member for Mudgeeraba to get out in her electorate and start talking to people about the opportunity. I challenge her to make a commitment to promote this grant for the benefit of those in the industry whom she purports to represent so they can not only get jobs but also move some of that stock that has been difficult to move for some time. This is an opportunity that I do not think many Queenslanders should pass up. I encourage everyone to see whether this is an option for them. I will certainly be taking that challenge and I will continue to do so. Indeed, it is worthy to recognise that, if anything, this bill and the Building Boost will actually go a long way towards boosting confidence in Queensland and further investment. I commend the Treasurer and his department for the work that they have done in that regard. I commend the bill to the House. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—LNP) (12.11 pm): Welcome to Queensland. This is the place where, if you buy your own home to live in, we charge you full tax—full stamp duty. But, if you do not live here and you want to buy an investment property, if you want to buy a beach house and put a tenant in it for a while and you live in another state, we will give you $10,000. Those opposite have made comment—I think every one of them who spoke did—about the fact that the LNP will be supporting this bill today. However, the tenor of the comments do not indicate that this is either good government policy or policy that the LNP would have introduced were we in government. The reality is that these contracts have already been written up and people have already acted on the basis that they will get their $10,000 grant. The LNP will not show bad faith to people who have acted contractually in good faith. So the rubbish that is being trotted out by those on the other side is a nonsense. The reality is that, were the LNP to vote against this bill today, it still would not bring back the stamp duty concession for people buying their own home. If Queenslanders want—and they do— recognition that there is something different when they buy their own home to live in with their family and they want that concession restored, they will need to vote for the LNP and change the government at the next election. It will not be changed here in this debate on this bill. This bill is a fait accompli and we will be showing common sense by supporting it. Queenslanders really want recognition that there is something very important about owning their own home and having the purchase of their own home treated the same as the purchase of a beach house or an investment property when it comes to stamp duty. This is, in my view, not something that Queenslanders are going to wear. Those opposite keep talking about homes. However, this bill is nothing to do with homes. This is about properties—and new properties at that. It will be predominantly investors who take up this opportunity. 3504 Building Boost Grant Bill 27 Oct 2011

One thing on which there is no disagreement in this place is the fact that the Queensland building industry is struggling through some of its toughest times in a decade. Overall approvals are down from the quarterly figures of around the 41,000 to 45,000 mark a couple of years ago to around 27,000. That is about a 40 per cent decline. If you go to some parts of the state about which the government and the Treasurer never seem to talk about, such as the Gold Coast, the Hervey Bay area, Cairns, the Sunshine Coast and elsewhere, you see communities that are really hard pressed. They are places where people seek concessions on paying their school fees and where properties are difficult, if not impossible, to sell. The authorities in this industry indicate to us that, with the decline in approvals, we have lost something like 17,000 building industry jobs in this state. So the matters we are talking about are serious matters. Of course, this particular measure that is being debated here applies only to new property. It does not matter whether it is someone’s own home or an investment property. It does not matter if it is multiple homes. An investor sitting in Sydney or Melbourne could snap up two or three properties in the buildings that are being sold down in the Valley or elsewhere and collect $10,000, $20,000 or $30,000. No-one is going to say no to that. However, this state, which is purported to be run by a Labor government, taxes people who buy their own home and charges them the full fare on stamp duty, but is happy to send multiple lots of $10,000 to investors interstate to buy property. That seems to be totally inconsistent with what Labor governments like people to believe they stand for. Who will be applying for this grant? That is the fundamental question. The answer to the question as to whether Queenslanders will benefit from the expenditure of $140 million of taxpayers’ money depends on circumstances in the market and who takes it up. Investors who were already going to buy a property or were looking for a property will take it up, thanks very much. Of concern—and we have seen this before, particularly with the introduction of the GST federally and its impact on housing, and that was the last major downturn—is that when you put in place artificial government incentives designed to alter people’s behaviour it sometimes does that. In this case, we may find that some activity among investors who were planning to invest is brought forward so that they contract during the August to January period. We all know that if you bring forward activity by way of an incentive—and I believe that will be an effect of this and it is hard to apply any sort of intelligence to the economic equation of giving people a financial benefit to act within that certain period; it is hard to imagine that people will not—activity is removed. The activity that has been brought forward from the ongoing quarters when this will not apply will obviously drop to levels lower than it would have otherwise been. In my view and in the view of others, the majority of movement will be existing stock that has been sitting around rather than the stimulation of construction of new properties in this very short, brief window. Not many people buy a new property the week or the month after the incentive is removed, and we all know that. In some of the hardest hit parts of the state, particularly places like the Gold Coast, established properties that are not eligible for this benefit are frequently, if not generally, priced below replacement cost. While existing stock is being priced below replacement cost, a measure of this type is unlikely to shift demand from the purchase of existing stock to the purchase of new stock. If it does so, it may actually further depress the market for existing stock. The LNP is supporting this bill. We could hardly do otherwise. To oppose it would not restore the stamp duty concession on the first home, nor would it be realistic for us to oppose it in circumstances where people have already signed contracts. But make no mistake: this is bad policy. It is bad policy, firstly, because it is short-term. It is bad policy because it is ineffective. In their speeches today government members have not defined what the aim of this grant is. Is it to clear old stock? Is it to create jobs, in which case you have to create buildings that would otherwise not have been built? It is bad policy because it is just designed to get this government through the next election before the full anger about the increase in tax on the family home comes through. I think it typifies a government that has been in for too long and is devoid of ideas; a government that was not able to manage the Queensland economy, which is why parts of it are in the mess that they are in today; and whose only policy response is to slug homeowners when they buy their own home and then at the same time put in a short-term measure to get them through to the next election, that principally will either clear existing stock or bring forward investor activity into this period and result in a sharper downturn after it. Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (12.21 pm): I rise to speak on the Building Boost Grant Bill 2011. I would like to commend the shadow Treasurer and shadow minister for finance and trade on his succinct and comprehensive analysis of this proposed legislation. From the outset I concur with the intent and the initiatives in this bill and the implementation of a Building Boost grant that will assist Queenslanders purchase a new home. This particular legislation is designed as a construction boost for an industry that has been severely under pressure in terms of job losses and in terms of confidence in the Queensland economy. This particular measure has been welcomed by the UDIA, the Property Council and the real estate industry. All of those groups are very supportive of a boost such as this going forward. It is a construction boost, but unfortunately what we have seen to date as a result of this particular piece of legislation is that, almost halfway through the period that this legislation applies to, it has turned into a sales boost. That may well turn into construction, but in the time between 1 August and 27 Oct 2011 Building Boost Grant Bill 3505

31 January what we have seen is very, very disappointing. I personally believe that any legislation that can help Queenslanders fulfil their want to achieve the great Australian dream of owning their own home is a step in a positive direction. The objectives of the bill are to put into practice the 2011-12 Queensland state budget announcement of the Building Boost grant, which is a grant of $10,000 for each new home purchased. This will allow financial support in the form of a grant for homeowners constructing or buying a new home. Substantially renovated homes may also apply for the Building Boost grant. The Building Boost grant is to assist people purchasing a new home by receiving a grant of $10,000 for a new home of $600,000 or less. Clearly there is a differentiation in this grant from the homeowner’s grant. In terms of that I would like to raise a matter that the committee of which I am a part, the Finance and Administration Committee, had an issue with, and that was the qualifying requirements for the granting of this $10,000 boost. I would like to highlight this matter to the Deputy Premier in his consideration of the bill. The committee unanimously—that is, four Labor members and three LNP members—agreed that the exclusion of related family to gaining entitlements to the Building Boost grant except by way of an ex gratia payment through the Commissioner of State Revenue was very much a deterrent to the intent of the bill. The bill clearly is designed to stimulate construction and jobs. There may be many cases where relatives build for relatives. For instance, they may feel comfortable with relatives who are registered builders building for family members. Yet they are precluded under this current legislation from getting access to this grant unless they are entitled to the First Home Owner Grant as well. Our thinking as a committee was that if they are entitled to a First Home Owner Grant and they pass all the probity matters and all the matters that are necessary to qualify for that First Home Owner Grant then what is the impediment to giving them the boost as well? We felt it was very much a flaw in the legislation. We wrote to the Deputy Premier. I am sure the Deputy Premier will explain to the House why he feels an ex gratia assistance plan through the office of the Commissioner of State Revenue is an appropriate way to address the matter, particularly when we requested that it be only for those cases that were on commercially realistic terms where the transactions did not involve anything to circumvent the scheme’s policy objectives. The time frame in which the Building Boost grant applies is from 1 August 2011 to 31 January 2012. Obviously we understand the retrospectivity problems with that. We understand there was a commitment in the budget so we are addressing that here in this House this week. I urge anyone who is thinking of buying to get in quickly as we are halfway through the scheme at this present time. One of the great disappointments is that the effectiveness of the scheme has been sadly lacking to this point in time. On the overall economic outcome for Queenslanders, Queenslanders are being a bit short-changed. The $250 million that the government gets from the changes to the stamp duty is being replaced by this government allowing $140 million for the Building Boost grant. Since 1 August 2011 there has been a little over $1 million taken up in grants. Of the 800 or so applications we have had something like 110 taken up. By all accounts and by all measures this scheme has failed to achieve anywhere near the intention of the scheme. That is a very, very disappointing aspect, particularly for myself representing an area such as the Gold Coast. We desperately need construction on the Gold Coast. We have builders driving up and down the highway to try to get work in the building industry. This scheme has not promoted employment one iota in terms of overall effectiveness to the construction industry on the Gold Coast. It is particularly disappointing because the purpose of this bill and the Building Boost grant scheme was to stimulate the Queensland housing market to assist housing affordability, increase the supply of housing and support employment in the housing construction industry. The government obviously has not done its homework on delivering an effective and workable solution to a serious problem in the construction industry. The government would be aware of the Campbell Newman LNP four pillars of economic betterment for Queensland. Should he become the next Premier of Queensland the construction industry is one of the very important four pillars of Queensland that he will address. The scheme is currently failing the housing industry in Queensland. It is just another failed attempt by this faltering Labor government pretending to show the community that it is acting on the declining housing market in Queensland. The Building Boost grant will be paid under administrative arrangements in anticipation of the passing of this bill. The bill also seeks to amend the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971. This bill inserts a head of power into the act to provide for the Coordinator-General to recover costs in assessing a proposed facility of significance. This means that costs will be able to be recovered and it give powers for fees to be charged to persons submitting applications. I believe the Building Boost grant is at least an attempt by this government to address the serious shortfall in the housing construction industry but, in reality, it will not do much to kick-start the housing industry again. I noticed on last night’s news reports that the median price for Queensland houses has fallen to the lowest of all mainland states. That is a sad indictment on a government in charge of protecting people’s major asset which is, for the majority of people, their home. We need radical and innovative policies that will stimulate the industry. At this point in time, this Labor government has not demonstrated a capacity to provide the policies and legislation necessary to effect an economic recovery. 3506 Building Boost Grant Bill 27 Oct 2011

We are experiencing very volatile times in the international markets. Australia certainly will not be immune from that. The market volatility has been triggered by the European debt crisis and the US’s slow recovery from the GFC. There is speculation of looming recessions in these major markets. With the IMF coming out recently and stating that the global economy is entering a dangerous phase, it is critical that the European debt crisis is solved. Countries like Greece and Italy need significant monetary reforms. Italy has 2½ trillion dollars in debt. That is 120 per cent of the nation’s GDP. It has no way of paying that back on its own. If we are waiting for a magic cure for the housing market in Queensland to come over the horizon, I do not believe it is the Building Boost that will generate the cure for our economic woes in the housing construction industry. The Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Mr Ric Battelino, believes the European authorities need to decide on policies that deal simultaneously with excessive government debt, weak banking systems, soft economic activity and sharp differences in competitiveness among European countries. In Australia we weathered the GFC much better than the rest of the world because we were left with the great legacy of a solid balance sheet by the John Howard government. Currently the Australian economy, especially in Western Australia, is looking positive on the one hand in the two-speed economy due to the second phase of the resources boom. According to the UDIA’s September report, this is happening in Queensland to a lesser extent, but Queensland housing approvals have been the most affected by the GFC. This is exactly why effective housing industry policies are vitally important for the government to implement immediately. This Labor government has failed in this area. In introducing this retrospective legislation it is trying to, in effect, sweep up in the construction industry after the supporting scaffolding has fallen down. Mr Rickuss interjected. Mr STEVENS: Thank you, member for Lockyer, I will take that interjection. I go back to the times when things were better—that is, before the GFC hit and put extra pressure on the Queensland housing construction market. We heard people involved in the housing industry complain about high government taxes, which includes local taxes and state government taxes, and the very slow rate of approvals. Terry Mackenroth and before him Tom Burns came out with ways in which to cut red tape in terms of housing approvals. Some 20 years of Labor later and we still do not have a fast approvals system in Queensland. There are also limited land releases. A policy of Brian Howe as Deputy Prime Minister—dug up from the depths of the Canberra planning scheme—allowed for brownfield development as opposed to greenfield development which, in effect, limited the extra land available for development in a country as big as Australia with very little urban development on the whole of our shores. That brownfield development saved governments putting in new roads, new hospitals, new schools and all those things that governments should properly spend taxes on—taxes paid by the good community. This type of development meant that they rebuilt and squashed everybody up in the sites we already have. That sent the prices of land in those brownfield areas skyrocketing. It has left limited greenfield sites available in the community. This government has been made aware of this time and time again by the UDIA, the Property Council and every real estate group going around. This has been ignored. Now we are seeing lip- service paid to the problem and this $10,000 Building Boost used to cover up the failures and mistakes of past Labor governments in Queensland. While the UDIA is supportive of the Building Boost grants scheme, it says in its September report that if there is a lacklustre take-up of the Building Boost grant the government needs to take swift action to rectify this. This being the case, I urge the Deputy Premier to act on this immediately. As the community groups that addressed the Finance and Administration Committee stated, while it might get somewhat stronger towards the end of the period—that is, into January—they do not hold hopes of there being a great take-up and certainly nowhere near the 14,000 approvals budgeted for to turn the industry around. They would like the government and the opposition to commit to no new taxes and charges for the housing industry in the next three years. One thing brought to the attention of the committee was that in 2010 the Victorian housing industry took off. That is a very sad indictment on Queensland. With all Queensland’s natural attractions, all its natural growth in the last 30 to 40 years—it was the boom state to move to—we see that housing figures in Victoria are suddenly shooting through the roof. When I pressed Mr Brian Stewart, president of the UDIA, he indicated that he was not aware of any particular boost scheme in Victoria that made that happen. He did indicate that there were very fast approval processes helping the industry to get off the ground. He did indicate that there is great confidence in Victoria, for goodness sake, which is not exactly going through a boom in the mining area which is contributing to a two-speed economy in other states. Mr Rickuss: But they have got a good government down there. 27 Oct 2011 Building Boost Grant Bill 3507

Mr STEVENS: But they have got a good government now. That is correct, member for Lockyer. Victoria is now setting the benchmark for growth in the housing construction industry. That says to me that something is rotten in the state of not Denmark but Queensland if we cannot, with our mining boom, address these matters and put proper policies in place that create confidence in the construction industry and again put the housing construction industry at the forefront of Queensland’s dynamic economy. On the Gold Coast we have two major industries and a third backup industry. Of course the major industry for the Gold Coast is tourism—and what a wonderful industry it is. The second major industry for the Gold Coast over the last 30 to 40 years has been the construction industry. People have moved to the fabulous Gold Coast to work in this industry. Even the good folk up at Rockhampton and Yeppoon dream of living on the Gold Coast. That has been the hallmark of our enormous growth. The third major industry on the Gold Coast is education. If the construction industry on the Gold Coast is not effective, quite clearly more jobs will be lost in our area. That will flow through to all the other areas such as the retail sector and the service industry sector. The Gold Coast will suffer as a result of this grant not taking off and the other matters that the government has looked at such as taxation and the approvals process that I mentioned earlier. It has not addressed those issues. In conclusion, the Building Boost grant has been a positive step from this government in trying to do something and recognise that the construction industry is in trouble and does need support. I would strongly suggest that government look at this matter again at the end of January, when this system has really failed to make any great change in the housing construction market materialise, and then adapt the funding that has been put aside for the Building Boost to another scheme that is more effective in getting the housing construction industry going. I would certainly endorse the UDIA’s submission to the Finance and Administration Committee that it has seen little or no impact on this industry since this scheme commenced. The UDIA made the comment to the committee that from its research the housing stock that has been sold is at the bottom end of the market—houses priced around the $450,000 mark. There may be some way that they can restructure that grant or this legislation to further stimulate or boost the housing industry. We will, of course, be supporting this bill as an attempt to lift the construction industry and provide more jobs. I would certainly like to thank all members of the Finance and Administration Committee for their hard work and in-depth review. It was done in a very short time, I must say. I understand why that was so. Matters that I raised earlier did not come to notice, so we were not able to warn the Treasurer about the issue of related persons until a very late period, which probably did not give him enough time to consider it properly. Maybe there will be adjustments to this bill at a later date. I thank all the members of the committee and particularly the chair, Mr Wayne Wendt, for his hard work in guiding this bill. Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (12.41 pm): I am pleased indeed to support in this parliament a very fine initiative of the Bligh government—the Building Boost. The Building Boost provides a $10,000 grant for all Queenslanders constructing or purchasing a new home up to the value of $600,000, with first home buyers also eligible for the $7,000 first home buyer’s grant. How good is that: $10,000 for going now? That is the message out there to new home buyers. Indeed, it is a good message. Yes, the intention behind it is to give new home buyers the confidence to act now rather than wait another six months or maybe 12 months, watching to see what happens with the economy. There has been, particularly in places like Cairns, a great loss of confidence through the period of the GFC and its impact on various industries—in particular the tourism industry and the residential construction industry. This $10,000 boost may just be the way to get people to take that action that does require a little bit of a jump in confidence to act now rather than later. At the same time as those who take up this $10,000 grant benefit our residential construction industry benefits. That is said pretty quickly, but we need to stop and think about what that means in terms of all of the suppliers that are required to build those new homes—all of the trades that are required in order to build new homes, as well as the furnishings for the new homes. The consequent flow-on of the take-up of the $10,000 grant is quite considerable particularly, we would expect, in those areas where the residential construction industry has been hard hit. The grant kicked off on 1 August and will end on 31 January, and that was announced as part of the 2011 state budget. I have been listening to the last several speakers from the opposition and their statements about this bill and I am absolutely confused. On the one hand, those opposite stand up, as the member for Mermaid Beach did, and say, ‘This is a good bill and we will be supporting it.’ Then they spend the best part of their 20 minutes on their feet saying, ‘This is dreadful. This is not going to work. This will turn out to be a dreadful failure. This is not going to help the construction industry. And, anyhow, it is only an empty ploy to— Mr Rickuss interjected. 3508 Building Boost Grant Bill 27 Oct 2011

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! Member for Lockyer, we heard you during the member for Mermaid Beach’s speech. We do not need to hear you during the the member for Cairns’ speech. Ms BOYLE: After having said, ‘Isn’t this good and we will be supporting it,’ then they say, ‘No. This is just an election ploy on behalf of the failing and dismal Bligh government, and it will not work anyhow.’ Then they wind up their speeches saying, ‘And we’ll be pleased to support this bill because it is good policy.’ They are really sitting on a knife edge. I can hear the leak from the party room now. Campbell has said to them, ‘Now, do not go into that parliament and say anything good about the Bligh government. Make sure that, no matter what, you trivialise it, that you rain on their parade, that you talk it down.’ Will that have an impact in electorates— Mr Fraser: ‘Put your conscience to one side.’ Ms BOYLE: I take that interjection—put their conscience to one side. That is an absolutely shocking thought. The irresponsibility of the position they are taking is only mitigated by the fact that the numbers of people in the state of Queensland likely to read the speeches of the member for Moggill and the member for Mermaid Beach could probably be counted on one hand—certainly fewer than 10. Raining on the parade of this government is incidentally raining on the parade of the confidence of those who have been looking at this opportunity, who have put in applications, who need that extra boost in confidence. It is almost certainly raining on the parade of all of the fine tradies in the construction industry on the Gold Coast as well as in Cairns who desperately need this work. They all know that the Queensland economy is getting better. They all know that already there is a huge take-up of jobs in the mining and gas industries. They know that by the middle of next year things will be moving along better than they have been for the last couple of years, but they need some help now. That is where the Treasurer and our government have provided a very short, sharp boost that I have no doubt will be effective. It is important to note that the benefits of the Building Boost do not cease once the $10,000 cheque is written. A newly built home requires electricians, plumbers and painters, furniture, floor coverings and a kitchen. The benefits of the boost will ripple through. They will spread far and wide, boosting the retail trades as well as the construction trades. I remind honourable members of the House that this boost has been very much welcomed by the housing industry. There are fine examples of their quotes in the public media, for example— This is a smart move that will give new homebuyers the confidence they have been looking for to make a move now ... So said Stockland Queensland General Manager, Kingsley Andrew, in the Courier-Mail in June this year. Another quote states— The home building industry in Queensland has been on its knees since the GFC and this Budget measure is exactly the sort of stimulus we need. So said Warwick Temby from the Housing Industry Association in the Courier-Mail in June this year. Another quote states— The Queensland Building Boost was an excellent initiative for the community ... So said Kathy MacDermott from the Property Council in June. The Building Boost bill was considered extensively by the Finance and Administration Committee, and I am really proud of the work we did because we did not have much time to do it in. But we did it enthusiastically, as did the opposition members on the committee. We could not help ourselves in the context of the public examination particularly of the key industry players, some of whom I have quoted above, not only from asking the question, ‘Is this good policy and has this been well set up?’, to assist us in making a decision about supporting this legislation in the parliament but also all of us—I, as well as opposition members—got a bit ahead of ourselves and started speculating about the effectiveness of this scheme and what will be the results of the scheme at the end of January when the grant comes to an end. Those wise heads who briefed us made the point that the boost will not stop on 31 January. That is the latest date for contracts to be signed. The flow-on post signing of the contract will continue at least heavily into the first six months of next year and probably through all of next year as the work of building the new homes takes place. All of the eminent members from the industry associations who were examined by us declined to predict the outcome. They did explain to us the good reasons for why the take-up is slow in the early months of the grant period. There is a lot of work to be done. After you put in your application, you have quite a lot of steps to go through before you can actually sign that contract. They paralleled the pattern that we are experiencing with this grant with other similar grants in times past. 27 Oct 2011 Building Boost Grant Bill 3509

They have said, nonetheless—and I do put it on the record—that so far the reports of impact on the residential construction industry have been limited and cautious. I am pleased to tell honourable members that a senior member of the REIQ in Cairns was in the Cairns Post talking about the housing market in Cairns generally only 10 or so days ago. Unsolicited, he made the comment that already we are seeing some flow-on, some benefit from the $10,000 grant that is my government’s Building Boost. It is good indeed to see indications that the system is gearing up as we had expected and that the numbers of applications are increasing as well as the likely numbers through the next period. I might present some of the latest figures to the House. At the time the committee met on 7 October 2011, the total number of applications was 698. The latest figures that I have to hand is that the total number two weeks later on 21 October had jumped to 992. That is an extra 300 in two weeks. That bears witness to the wise heads who informed the committee, opposition members included, that the take-up would increase as the months went on and all of the early work that was needed in terms of deciding to put in an application as well as then following through on a contract would speed up in the second half of the six months. I would like to particularly put on record the increase in figures for the Far North. The Cairns housing market has been depressed for the last several years and it has been hard, particularly given that our three biggest construction companies from Cairns have gone under during the GFC. All of the principals of those three construction companies spoke with the media on multiple occasions and gave recognition to the key factor in their demise being the unannounced call-in by the banks of their loan funds. Some of them admitted that they had probably unwisely, though they were encouraged to do so in the then economic climate, found themselves with huge debts that they were not able to manage and that led eventually to their demise. None of those three companies blamed the state government, as the disgraceful member for Mermaid Beach dared to do for the collapse of the residential construction industry in Queensland post GFC. That is absolutely diabolical politics, as the Treasurer said in an interjection earlier, which is ‘without conscience’. On 7 October the applications for the Far North for this Building Boost were 44 and had jumped by half to 65 only two weeks later, and I have no doubt that that number will increase. One of the matters that the committee discussed was the suggestion from some, particularly from some opposition members, that maybe the grant should be extended beyond 31 January. All of the wise heads from the industry who were informing us said that, no, it is really important that they understand this is a quick, sharp boost to get the confidence of people who are going to build across the line now to give the jobs to the construction industry in the early months of next year and across the year of 2012; that the economy is likely to have been stimulated by other factors and to be moving under its own steam as 2012 and 2013 come. I do put on the record that those fine people encouraged the Treasurer to do as he has been committing to do, and that is to follow through with the grant with its conclusion on 14 January next year. That does not mean that the situation may not be reassessed at that time, but for now it is really important that people who are interested in getting their application in, in getting the contract signed, know that there is no extension and that now indeed is the time. I would like to particularly thank the people who came to give evidence to the committee. They were the experts who have previously been consulted in the development of this fine policy and the resultant grant. I recognise Kathy MacDermott from the Property Council, Brian Stewart and Duncan Maclaine from the UDIA, Nicola McDougall from the REIQ, Warwick Temby from the Housing Industry Association and Graham Cuthbert from the Master Builders Association. It was an excellent experience to be part of the committee that examined this Building Boost, and I have no doubt that those figures that I have put before the parliament today will increase over the months ahead and that we will have a great number of new houses constructed in 2012 that might not have happened at least for another year or a year after that. Ms van LITSENBURG (Redcliffe—ALP) (12.55 pm): I am also pleased to support the Building Boost Grant Bill. The state Labor government is supporting Queenslanders to get into houses with the opportunities that are outlined in the bill. It gives both families and investors who sign up to build or purchase new residences between the August and January dates a grant of $10,000. These specific dates are vital because without that time limit people will not be encouraged to put their signature on contracts and so it may not achieve the purpose of boosting the building of new houses. For first home buyers, the $7,000 First Home Owner Grant and the transfer duty concession added to the $10,000 of this Building Boost grant makes a very sizeable discount to any house that they might be buying. These are real incentives for real people out there to sign up to new houses now. The result is that buying a new home will be more affordable for a lot of people. The number of properties available for rental will also increase with increased investor activity, and that will ease the rental market. This bill is also about supporting the jobs of those in the construction industry and the jobs of every person involved in related industries. The Bligh government had a clear strategy during the global financial crisis to support jobs, and it is the state government infrastructure program that maintained those jobs of construction workers and all of those companies that rely on construction for their incomes. It is important now for the state government to ensure that Queensland’s construction industry continues to remain viable. 3510 Private Members’ Statements 27 Oct 2011

With the recent slowdown in housing sales, many new houses were left unsold. While developers have money in unsold stock, they will not continue building, increasing the price of established homes and rental properties. There is still a deficit in housing in Queensland, so if we are to catch up and have enough housing for all Queenslanders we need to keep building. My electorate of Redcliffe during the last decade has seen a resurgence of backfilled development and unit development up to 12 storeys in height to take advantage of our wonderful bay views. Many of these units were completed around the time of the global financial crisis, so sales have been slow and construction of other units, even where there have been development approvals, has been delayed. The $140 million that will be injected into the economy through the implementation of this bill will have benefits right across the community. Families, first home buyers, investors and renters are obvious beneficiaries, as are the construction workers, tradies and companies that rely on them to maintain their jobs and all of the local businesses where they spend their money. This bill puts another piece in place towards creating greater security for Queenslanders and goes a long way towards achieving our Toward Q2 goals of building strong communities and a strong economy. Maintaining a strong community by ensuring we have a strong economy means that families, individuals and communities right across Queensland have confidence in their future and in their ability to maintain their jobs, and that this great state of ours will become even more the state that all Australians wished they lived in. I would like to thank the Treasurer for his strategic management of our economy. This bill is only a very small but important piece in a huge jigsaw. It goes to the heart of this Labor government’s values of supporting Queenslanders in jobs and developing our communities right across the state. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Ms Van Litsenburg, adjourned. Sitting suspended from 1.01 pm to 2.30 pm.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Child Care, Funding Mr NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (2.30 pm): I wish to raise a matter of concern that has arisen in my electorate of Clayfield. Earlier this month I met with Emily Zeitoun and Kylie Woodruff from the Kitchener Road limited hours day-care centre and the Wooloowin Community Centre respectively. Members would not be surprised to know that the parsimonious federal government has ceased funding all occasional and limited hours care across Australia. This affects 38 limited hours care providers in Queensland which, unlike the rest of Australia, have to go through a much more rigorous licensing process. These 38 centres include both the Kitchener Road Children’s Centre and the Wooloowin Community Centre. Members may also want to know that recently the state government sold to the Brisbane City Council the premises on which the Kitchener Road Children’s Centre is located, after representations by me and the councillor for Hamilton ward, Councillor David McLachlan, in order to preserve the operations of that organisation. The Queensland government has committed to maintaining funding for these centres but only up until 30 June 2012. Currently, the Department of Communities is undertaking a review process. Many centre operators feel that that review process is designed to make those centres become long-day-care or kindergarten centres. The actions by the federal Labor government are directly affecting many parents and families. Limited hours care is accessed by many experiencing significant disadvantage in their lives. Services are provided to support families seeking employment and experiencing high levels of poverty, as well as culturally and linguistically diverse families, women seeking support and child care due to postnatal depression, as well as some respite services. This model has been operating successfully for 30 years and is now under threat as a result of the actions of the federal Labor government. The question today is: does this state Labor government condone federal Labor’s actions and, if not, will state Labor take steps to fix the current funding deficit, or will it simply try to brush the problem under the carpet? (Time expired) Operation Cleanup, Graduation Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (2.32 pm): I was very proud to attend a graduation ceremony in the old Innisfail State High School a week or so ago, when unemployed people and displaced workers who did paid work clearing cyclone debris around Cairns and the Cassowary Coast region were recognised. There were 228 such people recognised. They had been victims of the cyclone and the consequent flooding, they were people who had families in distress and they had lost work and perhaps lost more than that, yet they willingly joined this special program which was funded by the state government and run by Choice Australia Management. 27 Oct 2011 Private Members’ Statements 3511

The program involved lots of important practical work to help the region recover. It kept workers who had lost their jobs employed, and at the same time it provided them with new training and paid work, which was a great experience. There is no doubt that it was successful not only immediately for these people but also in terms of their gaining qualifications that will assist them to get into long-lasting jobs and in fact into careers. A lot of them took up the opportunity for this further training. My congratulations go to these people. They were proud and I was proud of them. It was an excellent program that benefited them and the communities they served during the cleanup. It will also benefit them and their families for the long term. I also congratulate Choice Australia Management. Choice started in Cairns and it has a fine track record of working intensively with long-term unemployed people. Choice stepped up to the mark post the cyclone and managed this huge program of work. They got the work done and managed all of the workers in their various emotional states. They provided a great success story. The Greens, Preferences

Mr SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (Leader of the Opposition) (2.34 pm): It has been obvious for six months now that this government has totally lost its capacity to govern. It has become obvious in the last few days that it has also totally lost any philosophical compass. The government is now prepared to trade off any policy for preferences. Any party that has preferences to offer is able to demand a change in policy from this government—in a cynical bid to try and cling to power when government members know that they have failed in every sphere of public administration. We saw this at the last election, when this government traded its policy on wild rivers for Greens preferences. The first bill that this parliament considered after the last election was a bill to increase the number of wild rivers declarations in the state. That was the first bill introduced on the first day the parliament resumed because that is what was necessary to complete the grubby preference deal done before the last election. This time the Greens are demanding payment in advance. They want the payment upfront, and the Treasurer trotted in here this week to provide the first of such payments. Policy-for-preference deals is what this government sees as its solution to years of failure. We will see those policy-for-preference deals between now and the election. There are a whole range of Greens policies which I believe will ensure that any future state Labor government will bear a great resemblance to the debacle that we see in Canberra, where the Julia Gillard federal Labor government is held hostage by Bob Brown and his kryptonite Greens, which weaken that Labor government and ensure it is dysfunctional. Just as the Greens are kryptonite to the federal Labor government, so the Greens will be kryptonite to the state Labor government. A government that trades off its policies for preferences— (Time expired)

Trung Vuong Vietnamese Language School

Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (2.36 pm): I had the wonderful opportunity last month to attend the Trung Vuong Vietnamese Language School’s 20th anniversary at Darra State School. A 20th birthday is a momentous occasion for any organisation but especially for one that relies on volunteers. It was a very special day for the Trung Vuong Vietnamese Language School and its past and present volunteer teachers and students. This event took place the day of the Vietnamese Children’s Festival, which is an important annual event at Richlands. Along with the anniversary celebrations, we also celebrated another important family and cultural event on the Vietnamese calendar, the mid-autumn moon festival. Celebrations such as these enrich the benefits that multiculturalism brings to Queensland, in both a social and an economic capacity. These events are yet another testament to Queensland’s cultural diversity. The Trung Vuong Vietnamese Language School first opened its doors on 5 October 1991 with 73 students and 12 teachers to provide students with the opportunity to learn and improve their skills in the Vietnamese language. Since then, this school has come a long way and it now has 170 students from years 1 to 12, and 20 volunteer teachers who, with the support of Education Queensland’s Languages Other Than English program, deliver classes every Saturday. The Vietnamese community here in Queensland has been a source of inspiration not only for other more recent migrants but also for wider Australian society. I am pleased that they have recently had a win in quashing the RSL’s proposed MOU with the Communist regime as well. The Vietnamese community has made a wonderful contribution to the cultural, social and economic wellbeing of Queensland. This community has shown us that anyone can turn their dreams into reality if they are determined. Congratulations must go to Ms Khanh Tien Truong, principal of the Trung Vuong School, and all the volunteers for hosting the event and for their wonderful contribution to the cultural and social wellbeing of Queensland. It is a credit to all of the volunteers supporting this school, who preserve the Vietnamese culture and enable it to be shared with the wider community. 3512 Private Members’ Statements 27 Oct 2011

Child Safety

Ms DAVIS (Aspley—LNP) (2.38 pm): Tomorrow is Day for Daniel—a stark reminder of the need to protect our children, of the need for community awareness of children’s wellbeing and a day of action in support of child safety. Trauma and tragedy such as that suffered by the Morcombes is one side of the picture, highlighting the need to give our children the skills to keep themselves safe. But there is also the daily reminder that there are more than 8,000 children in care in Queensland. These children rely on the government to provide the best possible, safest and most stable environment in out-of-home care. We have seen Labor’s policy for child safety in our state. We have seen a record number of children living in care away from their homes, an ever-increasing number of children being removed from their homes and massive overrepresentation of Indigenous children in our child safety system. We have foster carer shortages. We have carers who are heartlessly booted out of the system for mindless bureaucratic reasons despite the years and effort they have dedicated to the wellbeing of children. We have carers who cannot take their foster-children on holidays or horse riding or for darts lessons because of bureaucracy. We have services that cannot get their licences in time still having children placed with them. We have staff walking out of the department’s door because they are pushed beyond human limits, with massive case loads that are impossible to meet. We have a minister who hides and covers up reports into the deaths of children in care until he is forced into disclosing them; a minister who instead of taking those reports as a basis for changing systemic failures that daily hurt our children in care trumpets that he will change death review processes; a minister who cannot fill existing staff vacancies, announcing that he will provide more unfillable places for staff; a minister who cannot answer basic questions in his portfolio, whose department’s $70-plus million computer system cannot generate basic statistics and who does not have the backbone to communicate with families left hurting by his blunders.

MND and Me Foundation

Hon. CR DICK (Greenslopes—ALP) (Minister for Education and Industrial Relations) (2.40 pm): A little over a year ago the life of Coorparoo resident Scott Sullivan was changed forever after an MRI revealed that he was suffering from motor neurone disease, or MND. About 1,400 people in Australia have the disease while thousands more, particularly family, friends and colleagues, feel its effects. Scott, who works at Suncorp in risk management, is married with two young children. Where many people would crumble under the pressure, Scott has powered on, establishing the MND and Me Foundation to help raise funds for and awareness about the disease. I want to put on the parliamentary record the names of the foundation board members: Stephen Gifford, Luke Jeffery and Shane Williamson. The foundation was formed in March this year and already its achievements have been significant, including raising $50,000 at the Gold Coast half marathon. On Sunday, 16 October the foundation held the inaugural MND and Me Million Metres for MND Swim. The event was the brainchild of southside resident Paul Green, a member of the masters squad at Langlands Park Memorial Pool at Coorparoo, just outside the Greenslopes electorate. The idea was for teams or individuals to swim 10 kilometres. In total 310 swimmers took part—42 individuals and 49 teams—collecting 2,300 donations and raising more than $180,000. This is a phenomenal outcome. I want to pay tribute to some of the people who made the event possible. Congratulations to the charity swim organisational committee—Paul and Jane Green, Kate Thurecht, Luke Jeffery, Stephen Clarke, John Townend and Scott Sullivan. Congratulations also to Danny Gifford, who designed an excellent website for the cause. Thank you to Jan and Tony Arndt, pool managers at Langlands Park Memorial Pool, for hosting the swim at a southside sporting institution. I make a special mention of Paul Green, who completed the swim on his own, raising more than $11,500. I give a big thankyou also to Olympic swimming great Jessicah Schipper, who lent her talents to the cause. People can help raise funds and awareness by visiting the website at www.mndandme.com.au. I meet a lot of people in this job, but rarely do I cross paths with a man as brave, as generous or as rich in spirit as Scott Sullivan. In the face of the most tremendous adversity, Scott is distinguishing himself as an extraordinary Queenslander.

Springbrook, Rainforest Restoration

Ms BATES (Mudgeeraba—LNP) (2.42 pm): I rise today to speak about the tiny embattled village of Springbrook, which is located in the Gold Coast hinterland in my electorate. It may be a small village, getting smaller all of the time and threatened with extinction, but its 650 residents have big hearts and they are fighting back. Their beloved village is disappearing before their eyes, all because of a 2006 secret grubby deal when then Premier Peter Beattie sold out the local residents for a preference agreement with the Greens. To seal the deal with the Greens, around $40 million of taxpayers’ money has been spent on rainforest restoration. But it has not been used to buy rainforest land but to buy out land used for homes, farms and businesses. To illustrate this madness, houses bought by the state, including historical homesteads, have since been demolished or left to slowly rot, waiting to be reclaimed by the rainforest. 27 Oct 2011 Private Members’ Statements 3513

According to the 2008 restoration agreement, there has been an unknown number of plant extinctions in the past 100 years which may have irreversibly changed the environment, making restoration impossible. The report goes further, saying that the natural pollinators and dispersers may have disappeared and that the overall genetic diversity could have fallen below critical levels. Indeed, even Dr Aila Keto of the Australian Rainforest Conservation Society herself was quoted in the Gold Coast Bulletin as saying ‘it is impossible to know if complete restoration is possible’. So why has all of this taxpayer money been spent when there is little chance of restoration? Why has this tiny community been singled out and sold out when it is not going to make much difference to the environment? This is yet another example of Labor and the Greens doing secret deals to the detriment of taxpayers. They cannot be trusted to run the nation; they cannot be trusted to run the state. The residents of Springbrook, many of whom are passionate about the environment, are justifiably angry that they were not consulted about this so-called restoration in the first place and they will not stand idly by and be guinea pigs for some failed green experiment. They are not prepared to lose their community—not without a fight. Vitamin Me Campaign; Kedron Caravans Ms MALE (Pine Rivers—ALP) (2.44 pm): It was a great pleasure to host the Minister for Tourism, Manufacturing and Small Business, the Hon. Jan Jarratt, to a tour of the Kedron Caravans factory in Brendale in my electorate last week. Coincidentally, it was on the same day that the minister launched the new Tourism Queensland campaign, Vitamin Me. The point of the campaign is to encourage Queenslanders to discover the many and varied ways that we can rid ourselves of the impacts of stress on our physical and emotional wellbeing by holidaying in Queensland. Australians are amongst the hardest working people on the planet, having stockpiled more than 123 million days of annual leave. So I am encouraging my local residents to ask themselves, ‘Do I need a holiday? Do my Vitamin Me levels need a lift?’ The $4 million Vitamin Me campaign is the exciting new instalment of Tourism Queensland’s Queensland, Where Australia Shines brand. This summer I encourage everyone to replenish their Vitamin Me levels by rejuvenating the spirit and reconnecting with family and friends in the place that makes you feel most alive—Queensland. To bring me back to my original point, what better way to do that than by supporting our local business Kedron Caravans by getting out in a caravan and exploring Queensland. Kedron Caravans is a local family business which was established in 1962 by Mr Barry Gall as a retailer of new and used caravans. In 1999 Barry Gall set up a manufacturing facility at Brendale and currently produces three off-road caravans per week using materials sourced from local suppliers. In fact, over 70 per cent of the raw materials are from Queensland or Australian companies. Kedron Caravans is so well respected in the business that it has orders which will carry it well through to next year, which, of course, is its 50th anniversary year. What a fantastic achievement! Barry’s five sons are all involved in the business— David, Peter, Craig, Ashley and Glen. These are true-blue Aussie boys. I have had the pleasure of watching the videos of their adventurous trips and the videos not only showcase the amazing capacity and capabilities of the Kedron caravans but also showcase the fantastic locations throughout Queensland and Australia where people can go camping with their family and friends and enjoy everything that nature has to offer. So I suggest you do what the Gall boys do best—top up your Vitamin Me and get out in the great Queensland outdoors and support local business and industry throughout Queensland. Juvenile Justice Mr BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (2.47 pm): Labor’s record on juvenile justice is abysmal. The state’s juvenile justice system is nothing more than a revolving door of young criminals. Ms Grace interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: Yes, I have, member for Brisbane Central; three weeks ago in the Cleveland Youth Detention Centre. A recent Courier-Mail article published last Saturday revealed that Queensland taxpayers are paying $100,000 for a juvenile justice system that is broken and ineffective. What else would we expect from a long-term Labor government that is all talk and no action? In a desperate attempt to tackle this issue, the Minister for Community Services rocked into parliament this morning and announced a blitz—a blitz of 200 of the state’s most hardened youth offenders. What has the government been doing for 20 years? Ms Bates: Nothing—absolutely nothing! Mr BLEIJIE: Absolutely nothing on this issue. Queenslanders have every right to be frustrated after reports earlier this week indicated that, on average, 139 children, some as young as 10, were being held in our state’s detention centres. Labor’s soft approach to addressing this issue has not only failed the offending children but also the wider community. We believe that these offenders must be rehabilitated during their time in custody and mentored when they are released—something that I have been saying for months. So when the minister rocked in here this morning and announced this blitz, it 3514 Private Members’ Statements 27 Oct 2011 was no news to me, because the Liberal National Party has been talking about it. The minister says that the government is tough and it is going to crack down on this. She talked about bullies in the LNP. She said that the LNP would create more bullies and that there are enough bullies in the ranks of the LNP. A simple Google search will reveal a lot about this minister and bullying tactics. So it is really the pot calling the kettle black when the minister comes in here and says that she has a plan. Those opposite have had no plan for 12 years. I say to Queenslanders: not Anna Bligh, not Labor, not again! (Time expired) Morayfield Electorate, Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund Mr RYAN (Morayfield—ALP) (2.49 pm): Not many things take my breath away but when Minister Reeves announced the new sporting infrastructure program grants I was very excited. It took my breath away. The Queensland government’s $20 million Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Program delivers in spades for the sporting clubs of the Morayfield state electorate. I was very excited that all of our hard work has paid off for the Caboolture Sports Football Club because it has received a $63,000 grant from the Queensland government to install new field lighting at its sports complex. This is great news for the club and great news for the kids who play soccer in our community. Even the president of the Caboolture Sports Football Club, Mr Andrew Davies, said— The Club is just so excited about receiving this Queensland Government grant ... The new lights mean we will be able to use more fields, play more games and include more kids in sport. And that is what it is all about: it is for the kids; it is about delivering results for our local kids. Of course, it is a huge win for this club and our community generally. But it does not stop there. Honourable members: There’s more? Mr Ryan: There is more because we have been working hard as a community to deliver sporting opportunities for our local clubs. I am also pleased to hear that the Moreton Bay Regional Council will receive a Queensland government grant in the amount of $144,000 to commence stage 1 construction works for new official and player amenities for the mighty Burpengary Jets Junior Rugby League Football Club. This club is one of the biggest junior rugby league clubs in the Brisbane competition. It has been going for over 20 years. This upgrade is one of the first upgrades that it will be receiving in its 20-year history. Again, the president of the club is just so grateful for this Queensland government’s support. This is the Queensland government delivering for sporting clubs in the Morayfield state electorate. CSG Industry; Maternity Services Mr McLINDON (Beaudesert—KAP) (2.51 pm): It was an honour to be part of the national day of action on coal seam gas on 16 October in conjunction with Keep the Scenic Rim Scenic. There were over a thousand people within the Scenic Rim region at Protesters on Peaks in 70 different locations. The Scenic Rim region, the second-fastest growing region in Queensland, will be one of tourism, lifestyle and agriculture and I will do everything in my power to ensure the 12-month moratorium on the flawed coal seam gas industry. There will be ‘no go’ zones such as the Scenic Rim and the Great Artesian Basin. I would like to thank Tracey and Innis Larkin and David McMaugh from Bunjurgen wines for refuelling the helicopters and making sure that all the protesters were well fed and watered in the afternoon. I also had the privilege of speaking in Queens Park and addressing the crowd there. People are starting to wake up and realise that this industry will result in a short-term gain for long-term pain. It is simply not good enough that these multibillion-dollar foreign owned companies are channelling this revenue overseas and we will be left to pick up the pieces. It came as no surprise that no member of the government or the opposition—the ALP or the LNP—was involved in this national day of action. I can tell honourable members that this will be one of the four front issues in the Scenic Rim and across Queensland. In four years time we will be a net importer of foods. We will not even be able to sustain ourselves. In fact, the Australian Financial Reviews says that currently we are a net importer. I would also like to thank the Minister for Health for reinstating the maternity services at Beaudesert Hospital, which is now entering its phase 3, and also for the $1.7 million new ambulance station at Jimboomba which will service that area. I welcome these announcements as well as the announcement that the minister is coming out, hopefully, to look at Mount Tamborine and the operation of the police station as well. The Katter’s Australian Party is proud to announce another nine candidates. We are a party that stands up for the recreational groups, small business, agriculture and Australian owned businesses and manufacturers. We saw that the Liberals only across the border went on a campaign against asset sales and they are now selling off the Port of Botany and the electricity in New South Wales. We are looking forward to the next election and we are ensuring that we have a strong team of common-sense candidates. (Time expired) 27 Oct 2011 Private Members’ Statements 3515

Military Brotherhood, Military Motorcycle Club Ms JOHNSTONE (Townsville—ALP) (2.53 pm): Last Saturday I attended a service in Townsville commemorating United Nations Day, which is celebrated on 24 October each year. This was the inaugural Townsville service to be organised by the Military Brotherhood Military Motorcycle Club, Townsville chapter. The club was established two years ago and the Townsville chapter has been operating for just under that time. The club exists for serving and ex-serving members of the Australian Defence Forces and Commonwealth forces, families, friends and supporters and it runs in strict accordance with Department of Defence guidelines. It aims to provide camaraderie, mateship and firm support. The brotherhood supports veterans by working in partnership with Department of Veterans’ Affairs, RSLs and other ex-service organisations. The mission of the club is to provide a ‘safe haven’ that creates camaraderie, mateship and commitment; to ride their motorcycles and allow members the freedom to ride together; to bond together, to enjoy the road together, to look after each other; and to provide competent and dedicated welfare, pension and advocacy support to their members, veterans and veterans’ families in partnership with government departments such as Department of Veterans Affairs. I say congratulations to the brotherhood for organising this service. It was particularly touching to hear the entire honour roll read out. This honour roll was a list of Australian Defence personnel and police men and women who have paid the supreme sacrifice whilst serving on United Nations missions across the globe, including in Afghanistan, the Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste. By January 2012 Townsville will be home to 7,000 serving Defence Force personnel. Many have been deployed on numerous occasions and it is vital that there is a range of supports and networks available to them if they need practical, emotional or social supports. I commend the brotherhood for their commitment to veterans, young and old, and I am very pleased to support them into the future with their goal of sourcing permanent office accommodation from which its support workers can operate. Mount Warren Park Dental Clinic Mr CRANDON (Coomera—LNP) (2.55 pm): My office received a call from a constituent regarding the Mount Warren Park Dental Clinic, a Queensland Health facility. My constituent went for a scheduled appointment last week only to be told that the staff were on strike and she would have to come back this week. On arrival yesterday she was told that they were still on strike and they did not know when it would be sorted out. My constituent made a big fuss as it had cost her $13 to get there by taxi from Eagleby. Eventually, she was treated by a dentist and he told her to make another appointment for further treatment. The staff advised her that another appointment could not be made as they were not making appointments because they are on strike. The constituent rang Logan City Council, who referred her to the Premier’s office, who referred her to the office of the member for Waterford, who referred her to my office. We spoke to Mount Warren Park Dental Clinic staff, who confirmed they were on strike. Staff are striking about pay and work conditions. They are only taking emergency cases and are not accepting new patients or making appointments. She said that people need to ring the office of the member for Logan to arrange appointments. The staff of the member for Logan advised that they are referring everyone to the Premier’s office. It is a bit of a run-around. We rang the Premier’s office, who tried to put us through to the office of the Minister for Health. At 10.40 am yesterday we received a call from the health minister’s office. At 3.10 pm we spoke to our constituent, who advised that someone had rung but she was not home. They were meant to ring back at 2.30 pm, which was 40 minutes before we had rung and they had not yet rung. Finally, after further intervention, Queensland Health is now working to assist my constituent. Further inquiry at the clinic found that approximately seven admin and dental assistants are on strike. Tasks not being performed include making appointments and accepting new patients. We have been advised that the Browns Plains clinic is completely shut down due to the strike. We are told that the strike is because of pay and working conditions, for example, dental assistants are being required to do admin and other tasks not in their job descriptions. What is the minister doing to fix this issue that is preventing those who cannot afford private dental treatment from even making an appointment, let alone having the dental work needed, thus pushing up waiting lists even further? Your Inspiration at Home Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (2.57 pm): Last Wednesday along with the Deputy Premier, Andrew Fraser, I had the pleasure of visiting a local Molendinar business called Your Inspiration at Home to share a tasty plate and hear about the start-up company that is exploding on to the direct marketing scene. Your Inspiration at Home Pty Ltd is a great local success story, having achieved more 3516 Private Members’ Statements 27 Oct 2011 than $1 million in sales since starting up only 16 months ago. Your Inspiration at Home is a locally owned direct sales company that provides gourmet foods and innovative Kitchenware to add a dash of inspiration to the menus of beginner cooks and dedicated foodies alike. Your Inspiration at Home is an example of what can be achieved with determination, hard work and a great business plan. The success also shows how a helping hand can support businesses to grow. The Gold Coast City Council and the Queensland government have both been working with Your Inspiration at Home to support its expansion into new international markets and take advantage of future marketing opportunities. The Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation has provided assistance with the company’s export and growth plans and advice on the establishment of a manufacturing facility on the Gold Coast. This means more jobs for the Gold Coast. Your Inspiration at Home also took out last month’s Gold Coast Business Excellence Award in the emerging business category. I congratulate the management, Colleen Walters and Steve Magarry, and staff of this young and rapidly growing Gold Coast company and wish them well for what I am sure will be a bright future. Right now as we speak Colleen Walters, the CEO, is involved in a Gold Coast City Council trade mission to Dubai. In addition to that, they have successfully completed a Gold Coast City Council trade mission to Malaysia, the Food and Hotels Show in Kuala Lumpur, with Malaysia distributors confirmed and Singapore distributors in negotiation. Additionally, wholesale and retail distributor negotiations are continuing for Indonesia, Mexico, Brunei, Philippines, Thailand, India and the Netherlands. (Time expired)

Gold Coast Turf Club Board Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (2.59 pm): A record field of 27 put forward their names for the Gold Coast Turf Club Board. Strong confidence for the future direction of the club has been achieved with the announcement of the new board. I congratulate all who genuinely contested the election, which epitomised the power of the democratic process. As someone who has had many wins and a few losses to boot, it is important to accept graciously the decision of the electorate at large with dignity. The announcement also shows strong support for the chairman of the board, Mr Brett Cook, with all nine of his team being successful in obtaining a place on the board by campaigning on positive issues that will improve and benefit the club. Antipathy and divisiveness on club matters should now cease, and a happy and healthy environment should prevail for the future development, growth and success of the club. The $35.4 million upgrade of the facilities of the Gold Coast Turf Club promised by the Bligh Labor government, to be delivered by Racing Queensland, needs to be the focus of the new board. Preparation for the most recognised international event on the racing calendar, the Magic Millions, should also be a priority for the board. This iconic event and tourism drawcard for the Gold Coast has helped the Gold Coast Turf Club become one of the most successful turf clubs in Australia. This definitive outcome for the board will allow everyone to come together and look to going forward in a harmonious way for the betterment of the Gold Coast Turf Club. I congratulate my good friend Dr Mick Barry for his excellent contribution to the board over quite a number of years before his decision to retire this year. I congratulate the chairman of the board, Brett Cook, and his executive, and I look forward to an exciting time ahead for racing on the Gold Coast with a newly invigorated Gold Coast Turf Club that will see tourists and the local community embracing racing like they have never done before. I hope to be able to assist him and the board as part of a future LNP Campbell Newman government. I can give the House the strong confirmation that Dunedin will win the Melbourne Cup next Tuesday.

Manufactured Homes, Residential Parks Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (3.01 pm): Manufactured home residents in my electorate brought to my attention some months ago that the owners of some manufactured home parks were charging an administrative fee to cover the cost of a groundsperson reading the electricity meters for their homes. Some manufactured home parks, when developed, established a separate electricity grid for the residential park. The people who live in manufactured home parks are generally seniors on fixed incomes who have invested in purchasing their homes. However, they sign a site agreement that sets the cost of the land rental for the actual home. In my view, this land rental and any further costs associated with maintenance of the park should be clearly stated on the site agreement to ensure transparency of costs and enable park residents to budget for these expenses when buying into the park. It also assists people who are looking at the cost of buying these homes. I believe that to charge residents an administration fee of up to $8.60 per household per month just to read an electricity meter is double-dipping by some park owners, who have been making up to $2,000 extra a month with this charge. 27 Oct 2011 Private Members’ Statements 3517

I am pleased that the Minister for Community Services and Housing has announced today that the Bligh government will amend the governing legislation to prohibit this practice. I thank her and her staff for their assistance in this matter. In addition, some park owners have been buying grid electricity in bulk at a discounted rate yet charging the residents a tariff 11 rate. The state government will write to park owners advising that our legislation is clear in its intent that park owners cannot profit from the provision of essential utilities. I wish to thank Mr Fred Harris, the president of the Hammond Village Residents Association, and his committee for their assistance with this matter. He has lobbied me very strongly on behalf of the residents of the parks in my electorate and I am pleased to have been able to work with him to achieve this outcome. (Time expired)

Turf Industry

Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (3.03 pm): A recent report by DEEDI indicates that the lifestyle horticulture industry in Queensland has an estimated annual turnover of just under $4.4 billion and employs 28,000 people who earn over $625 million in wages. Within the lifestyle horticulture sector, turf production accounts for just under $160 million and directly employs 1,500 Queenslanders earning more than $25 million in wages. The turf industry in Queensland has been well established for some time. Almost half of all the businesses engaged in the production of turf have been operating for more than 10 years. Overwhelmingly, turf producers are small businesses. The DEEDI report indicates that, on average, 87 per cent of the total sales of a turf production business are within 100 kilometres of where their business is located, while less than one per cent is sold interstate. It is a Queensland based industry that grows turf for Queenslanders. Turf Queensland is the peak industry body representing turf producers in Queensland. It has been working particularly hard in recent years to improve the quality and the reputation of the turf industry in this state. It has developed and promoted a voluntary turf accreditation process for turf producers. Businesses are assessed independently by a third party, allowing turf producers to identify themselves as sustainable producers of a top-grade product. The turf accreditation process sets high standards for the sustainable use of land and water for the production of turf. Using an accredited turf producer minimises the risk to consumers when purchasing turf for everything from a backyard job to a major commercial project and ensures customers are purchasing a quality product that is environmentally friendly. I would like to compliment the turf industry and turf producers for proactively developing the turf accreditation process for what is a growing Queensland industry. (Time expired)

Bulimba Electorate, Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund

Ms FARMER (Bulimba—ALP) (3.05 pm): The Bligh Labor government spends more on sport and recreation than any other state or territory in Australia. I work hard to make sure our local sport and recreation organisations are positioned to get their fair share of that funding, which is why I was thrilled to get the news last week that two of our outstanding local organisations had hit the jackpot. One only has to poke their head into the changing rooms at the Morningside AFL club to know that they desperately need to be torn down and rebuilt. So the just under $300,000 that the club will receive under the $20 million Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund for that very purpose will make a real difference. This is the single biggest injection of funds the club has ever received and they so deserve it. They have literally built the club from scratch, brick by brick. They do not have a lot of money, but what they lack in funds they make up for in pure heart. The players do not get paid huge salaries, but they do receive in spades the absolute respect, appreciation and support of club members. The club is literally the heart of our local community. It is a similar situation over at the Morningside Tennis Centre, run by the Queensland Catholic Lawn Tennis Association. This group has existed since the 1920s, with the sole purpose of providing opportunities for members of the public to play the sport the association loves, and that is tennis. It is not a wealthy group in a financial sense, but if you could count wealth by looking at the dedication and commitment of a group of volunteers then this group would be on the top 10 rich list. The $206,000-odd they will receive will go towards upgrading existing tennis courts and building new ones. This is great for our local area but, given the closure of a number of tennis facilities on the south side, it is also important for tennis itself. 3518 Private Members’ Statements 27 Oct 2011

Like a lot of Queenslanders, in our local area we love our sport. I want to thank these two excellent clubs for everything they do to provide opportunities for us locals to enjoy sport. I also want to acknowledge the Minister for Sport for his appreciation of what clubs like this need.

Turf Industry Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—LNP) (3.07 pm): I rise to say a few words about the turf industry. I would like to acknowledge Jim Vaughan, the chief executive officer of Turf Queensland who is in the public gallery at the moment. I must congratulate Turf Queensland. I was involved in the meeting with CEO Jim Vaughan, president John Keliher and board member Greg Banff when discussing the turf accreditation process, known as TAP. This is part of a process that will ensure we will have a sustainable, long-term turf industry into the future. As with all types of accreditation, not only does it provide confidence and credibility to the turf industry; it also imposes some costs for third-party accreditation and auditing and improved record- keeping. Customers of TAP approved turf suppliers are receiving a better product that is quality assured in its production method and the variety and grade of turf they are receiving. They can be assured that the information and products they will be receiving are appropriate for the job at hand. Customers can be assured that the turf they receive is produced to the highest environmental standard, that workplace health and safety has been well managed in the production of the turf, that the water and irrigation systems are of the highest standard and that soil health is maintained and improved. Does it cost more to use TAP turf supplies? Do TAP turf suppliers get priority for supplying state and local government contracts? These questions need to be asked and answered. Quality and confidence in a product does deserve to be fairly remunerated. I am calling on local and state governments to implement quality assurance in their procurement of turf supplies for projects. This will mean they should be having discussions with Turf Queensland and using TAP turf growers. What will it cost? The government will receive the best product for the project and will have confidence that the turf has been produced to the best industry standards. Governments and turf users in general will be able to assure the community that the turf job is being done to the appropriate standards. I encourage anyone wishing to use turf to use TAP approved growers. TAP growers will ensure the turf you get is right for the job and has been grown for the benefit of the community.

Judith Wright Centre; National Bandanna Day Ms GRACE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (3.09 pm): The Judith Wright Centre was developed by the Queensland government and officially opened on 19 October 2001 by then minister for the arts, the Hon. Matt Foley. On Wednesday, 19 October 2011 a decade of Brisbane arts and culture was celebrated at the 10th birthday of the Judith Wright Centre of Contemporary Arts. Artists who worked and performed at the centre, named after poet Judith Wright, gathered for a special reunion in the Fortitude Valley art centre. In 10 years, the Judith Wright Centre has become an arts hub, showing an estimated 1,165 performances and more than 45 contemporary art exhibitions. When the Queensland government first opened the centre it was revolutionary for Brisbane, but it has paid dividends for the local economy and social fabric of our state. The centre has been instrumental in Brisbane’s cultural awakening and has contributed significantly to this government’s agenda to modernise the state. When the Judith Wright Centre was opened, it was the first time we had a purpose-built space for the arts that served as both a venue and a home for arts companies. Working over the years with cutting-edge artists and companies, the Judith Wright Centre has attracted bright and creative people to our state and transformed creative ideas into positive artistic experiences. For example, Expressions Dance Company and Circa are both creating their new work at the Judith Wright Centre and then touring nationally and internationally. I congratulate the Judith Wright Centre and all its staff on its first decade and look forward to the next decade of new and exciting work, at the forefront of contemporary arts in Queensland. Happy birthday, Judith. Today is National Bandanna Day. I am wearing a bandanna. Members can obtain one from CanTeen, which is located in the electorate of Brisbane Central. CanTeen does an excellent job in helping young people affected by cancer. They will be out on the street selling these bandannas. They are relatively cheap. The money will go to a very good cause. I urge everyone to wear their support.

Carbon Tax Mr DICKSON (Buderim—LNP) (3.11 pm): I am going to outline some enforcement powers. These powers enable an officer to enter premises by consent or by warrant for the purpose of, among other things, determining whether the act or the associated provisions have been or are being complied with or substantiating information provided under the act or the associated provisions. 27 Oct 2011 Private Members’ Statements 3519

The following are the monitoring powers that an inspector may exercise in relation to premises under section 232. They are the power to search the premises and anything on the premises; the power to examine any activity conducted on the premises; and the power to inspect, examine and even take measurements of or conduct tests on anything on the premises. The inspectors also have the power to make any still or moving image or any recording of the premises or anything on the premises. So I suppose we are talking surveillance powers? Inspectors also have the power to take extracts from or make copies of any document and the power to take onto the premises such equipment and materials as the they require for the purpose of exercising powers in relation to the premises. A person is not excused from giving an answer or producing a document under section 235 on the grounds that the answer or the production of the document might tend to incriminate the person or expose the person to a penalty. What I have been quoting gives sweeping powers to inspectors to enter premises, compel individuals to give self-incriminating evidence and copy sensitive records. But where are these powers found? These powers are not bestowed upon agencies investigating serious crime or undertaking counterterrorism inquiries. Oh no! These powers are from just one of Labor’s carbon tax bills. Labor will stop at nothing to force Australians to pay more under a carbon tax. The people of Queensland will never forgive or forget this Labor government for bestowing this tax upon them. (Time expired)

Emergency Services, Remembrance Day Mrs KIERNAN (Mount Isa—ALP) (3.13 pm): Earlier this month across the state, services were held in honour and respect for national remembrance days for our police, ambulance and fire officers. I was privileged to attend services in Mount Isa and Cloncurry for police, ambulance and fire officers and to attend the service held at St Bridget’s Church here in the capital. These remembrance day services pay tribute and honour the officers of those services who have lost their lives in the line of duty. Across Queensland we have seen 139 police, 32 ambulance officers and 49 fire officers die in the line of duty. We will always honour and remember their sacrifice. I wish to also acknowledge today all the serving officers across the state, but most particularly the dedicated officers across the services who serve in my electorate. I was honoured to join with officers at the Mount Isa and Cloncurry remembrance day services. This year was the first time police have paid tribute to our police chaplains in the service. Two well-known retired police chaplains, who have passed away, were John Colin Campbell and Archie MacNicol. They were recognised and honoured this year. We in the north-west are privileged to have two long-serving police chaplains in Father Mick Lowcock, who was first appointed in Townsville and who has been in Mount Isa for 18 years, and Father Ernie Lemmon, who has been a chaplain in Cloncurry for about 15 years. I have known both our chaplains for many years and I know that from the highest-ranking officers to the new probationary officers, Father Ernie and Father Mick are held in the highest esteem and receive the greatest respect and admiration from not only serving officers but also their families and non-serving members of the QPS. I thank them for their great service to our police force. In the small communities of my electorate, police, ambulance and fire officers are out there doing their job each and every day. (Time expired)

Uganda, Child Sacrifice Mr FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (3.15 pm): I rise to bring to the attention of the House today a very sad situation in Uganda where there has been in relatively recent years an outbreak of the hideous practice of child sacrifice. I want to acknowledge Pastor Peter Michael who is in the visitors’ gallery today. He has established the Kyampisi Childcare Ministries and runs an orphanage in Uganda which is all about rescuing these children. In the middle of the night people steal children. This even happens during the day while parents are otherwise occupied. The witchdoctors procure the children and kill them and use their body parts in horrific circumstances. They use them in witchcraft practices. People are taking the lives of children and burying parts of these children’s bodies in the foundations of buildings in the vain hope that it will bring good luck. It is not every herbalist and traditional practitioner who is a witchdoctor. This is a money-driven, horrific crime. There are children in the orphanage whom Pastor Peter has been able to rescue who have been horrifically scarred and maimed by this practice. 3520 Private Members’ Statements 27 Oct 2011

There is an e-petition on this issue currently before this parliament. I would urge all members to sign it. I table a document outlining child sacrifice in Uganda so that members can read about this further. Tabled paper: Report by Jubilee Campaign and Kyampisi Childcare Ministries titled ‘Child Sacrifice in Uganda’ [5750]. It is a worldwide problem. The BBC has recently done an undercover investigation into this horrible phenomenon. It has done a fantastic documentary which sets out the problems and the solutions. (Time expired) Newman, Mr C Ms JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (3.17 pm): It has been over 200 days since Campbell Newman first became the candidate for Ashgrove. When he became the candidate for Ashgrove, amongst a lot of fanfare, he promised in the first letter that he wrote to residents that he would focus on fixing local traffic congestion, including hot spots such as Wardell Street and Samford Road. A government member interjected. Ms JONES: No, nothing has been happening. He will not say where he stands. More recently we had the privilege of having the ABC do a live broadcast from the electorate. Both of us were asked questions by local constituents about matters that were important to them. Once again he got asked about this, because he has failed to say where he stands on this intersection since becoming the candidate in March, and he said—and I quote Campbell Newman—‘I have a plan for that intersection and I will be circulating that letter in the next few days.’ Tomorrow marks two weeks since Campbell Newman gave the commitment to his own voters that he would release his plans in the coming days. The problem we have here is that while Campbell Newman is travelling around the countryside and going anywhere in Queensland—anywhere but the electorate of Ashgrove—he is keeping the people of Ashgrove in the dark. While he faffs around, we are fixing this intersection. I am very pleased to advise the House today that the preliminary works have started on the first stage of this upgrade. An opposition member interjected. Ms JONES: While Mr Newman is travelling around the countryside he is leaving the people he seeks to represent in the dark. Within the coming week we will distribute information flyers and letters to local businesses and stakeholders concerning the work that this government is doing to fix the Samford Road-Wardell Street intersection. What we have seen time and time again from Campbell Newman, the LNP candidate for Ashgrove, is that he refuses to say what he would ever do if elected the member for Ashgrove. That is not good enough. We expect more. His constituents asked him about this and he promised that he would reveal what his plans are. Once again he wait with bated breath to hear where he really stands on an issue. I imagine it will be the same as his One Nation stance. (Time expired) Queensland Health, Ambulance Ramping Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—LNP) (3.19 pm): Ramping and access block continue to be scourges on our public health system, and the impact upon the population of Queensland is dire. We have now had 13 years of continuous Labor government, and ramping and access block continue to grow on a weekly, monthly and yearly basis. Yesterday we saw the appointment of Dr David Rosengren to oversee new services and new initiatives to be rolled out across our emergency departments. Dr Rosengren is an expert in emergency medicine, and he will be working with the great doctors, nurses and allied health professionals right across Queensland to assist more Queenslanders get through our ED system. I make this point: this government has one policy with regard to our public health system. It focuses everything on the emergency department. Ramping and access block are purely focused on the emergency department. What the government does not understand is that this is a whole-of-hospital issue: you cannot isolate one section. To do that misses the point. This government has the mantra of building bigger and bigger EDs. All that means is more people parked on more chairs, on more trolleys and on more beds. It does not move people through the ED into the wards and into a bed. It is about time this government understood that, when you are looking at ramping and access block, EDs are part of the solution. You need to access beds. You need to look at discharge policies, access to radiology, pathology, pharmacy, elective surgery waiting lists and the rest. When you approach the matter as a whole-of-hospital issue, you will find the solution. A nitpicking government, as this Labor government is, has again failed to understand the real issues facing the Queensland public health system, and that is focusing on the whole hospital, not trying to solve one issue and creating problems elsewhere. (Time expired) 27 Oct 2011 Private Members’ Statements 3521

Chatsworth Electorate, Bus Services Mr KILBURN (Chatsworth—ALP) (3.21 pm): On 29 August this year the most recent part of the Eastern Busway was opened ahead of schedule and under budget. Whilst people could see the benefits of that, what a lot of people did not realise was that that opening coincided with the introduction of a whole raft of extra bus services, particularly going through the Carindale area and through my electorate of Chatsworth. The opening of the busway also saw the start of 103,590 new weekly seats from the eastern suburbs into the city. This means that residents in my electorate can save about 1.5 hours of travel time per week. The service package also included 31 new buses, 12 new bus stops and five new bus routes, including route 222 from Carindale to Roma Street and route 590 from Garden City to Airport Drive. I am happy to advise that yesterday the minister also announced that route 222, which started last month, has already been extended and an extra four services have been added early in the morning to ensure more people can get to work and can get to work earlier. The new services will run from 5.05 am and continue until late at night. The buses will run every 10 minutes in peak hour to ensure people can get rapid trips into the city. I am also happy to announce that the first round of consultation for the Gumdale-Carindale bus route has finished and that TransLink is now consulting people in the second round on which option they prefer for a new bus route connecting people in the fast-growing suburbs of Gumdale and Wakerley to the Carindale area. This is an ongoing part of the work that I have been doing—increasing feeder services to Carindale to reduce pressure on parking in and around the Carindale area to ensure fewer people need to drive around that area and park on the roads, annoying the local residents who live close by. I will continue to work on improving feeder services and getting extra bus routes for the people in the Chatsworth electorate. Hervey Bay Electorate, Building Standards Mr SORENSEN (Hervey Bay—LNP) (3.23 pm): I would like to talk about the damage done to the Star of the Sea school when a storm hit Hervey Bay on 15 October. Their brand-new school hall, funded by the BER, lost its roof in the storm. Most of the new roof peeled off and was blown into houses at the back of the school, causing lots of damage. We all expect storms. What we did not expect was that the one roof to be lifted in the storm would be the school roof. No other houses lost their roofs. When we walked the streets, it was obvious that the brand-new school hall did not hold up to the reported 81- kilometre-an-hour winds, whereas every other piece of established infrastructure did. The hall was supposed to be built to have a W41 rating, which means that it should have been able to cope with 170- kilometre-an-hour winds, but it failed. I would like to ask the question: are there other school halls that are built to this standard in our area? I would like to put all the schools on notice to check their storm rating and have their building engineers approve it, especially if they are funded by Building the Education Revolution. The plans may be W41 ratings, but closer inspections of the construction are needed to see whether they meet those standards. Over the years Hervey Bay has had some pretty severe storms and cyclones. In 2009 we had Cyclone Hamish, which was a category 4 cyclone. It just turned away from Hervey Bay when it reached Sandy Cape. In 1972 we had Cyclone Daisy, which was a category 3 cyclone which hit Fraser Island. In 1967 we had Cyclone Dinah, which was a category 3 cyclone which just passed the coastline and went parallel to the coast. If those sorts of storms hit Hervey Bay, some of those schools will go. (Time expired) Bundamba Electorate, Schools Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (3.25 pm): Over the last couple of weeks I have been attending many school award nights in my electorate. I attended Bundamba State Secondary College and I gave out the Jo-Ann Miller Awards and other cultural awards. This is a school with great community spirit and which has also made a lot of improvements in literacy and numeracy. So well done to all the students. Congratulations to Mr Peach, the principal, staff and students. On Monday I attended the Goodna State School NAIDOC ceremony with many other members of our community. There were moving performances including a song about respect. The song was called When I close my eyes. I would like to thank Michelle and her team for all of her hard work for NAIDOC Week and also to Michelle’s husband for his NAIDOC vase and flowers. I also place on record my congratulations to the school for winning the showcase award for excellence, particularly Mrs Margaret Gurney, the principal, and staff and students. Westside Christian College, a school led by Principal Chris Meadows, is going from strength to strength. I presented the cultural service and biblical studies awards. There was a moving farewell speech by college captain Michael Dillon. The symphonic band played River of Hope. At St Peter Claver College I presented the art awards along with representatives of the Origin Alliance, builders of the Ipswich Motorway. 3522 Private Members’ Statements 27 Oct 2011

Redbank Plains State High School—well, what more can I say? They won the open boys rugby league championship and they are our champion high school team, winning the combined Ipswich Secondary School Sport Association championship award for 2011. Llew Paulger, the principal, the staff and the students are very proud of them, as is our whole school community. In fact, Douglas Fa’aiu is so talented that he has been chosen to play for the New Zealand under-18s to tour Great Britain in December. So when it comes to schoolboy rugby league, we are the champions in Bundamba. (Time expired)

Williams, Mr K Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—LNP) (3.27 pm): In the small hours of Wednesday, 19 October, Keith Williams, the 82-year-old trailblazer of Queensland tourism, passed away after battling ill health and a series of strokes. Queensland’s tourism industry lost a visionary leader and entrepreneur when the final curtain was drawn on the life of Keith Williams. Larger than life, this unforgettable man never took a backward step and would see opportunity, development and jobs where others would just see hurdles and enormous risk. Keith Williams encapsulated the bold spirit that helped put Queensland tourism on the map internationally. His drive and vision were legendary, as was his persistence and single-mindedness in pursuit of his goals. His achievements included building the first canal on the Gold Coast in the 1950s. In 1957 he started the Surfers Paradise Ski Gardens in the Nerang River and was Australian waterski champion in 1959. Keith staged the World Waterski Championships on the Gold Coast in 1965. After borrowing everything he could, Keith opened Sea World on the Gold Coast in 1971—and what a wonderful attraction it has proved to be, still bringing smiles to millions of visitors and locals alike as they are entertained. Then in 1975 Keith became the inaugural chairman of Gold Coast Tourism and in 1979 he was appointed chairman of the Gold Coast Waterways Authority and began work on the Gold Coast Seaway. One has to wonder, if Keith was in his prime and still with us today, how he would feel about the state the Broadwater has been allowed to deteriorate into, neglected by this toxic Bligh Labor government. Resorts on Hamilton and Daydream islands in the Whitsundays followed, and many years later he built the highly controversial Port Hinchinbrook development in North Queensland. In January 2011 he was presented with the first Gold Coast Legend Award for the city’s Australia Day celebrations. Tributes and memorials have flowed in for Keith. To a bloke who started out with nothing as a postman and created so much joy and pleasure for others, I say: thank you and vale, Keith Williams. You are a legend. (Time expired)

Ambulance Service, Local Ambulance Committees Mrs SMITH (Burleigh—ALP) (3.30 pm): The Queensland Ambulance Service provides Queenslanders with the highest qualified officers and the best equipment available. It leads the country in clinical care and paramedic training and is among the best in the world in providing state-of-the-art emergency care. But community members can also play an important part in their local Ambulance Service. I am a proud member of the Gold Coast Local Ambulance Committee. LACs are a unique community engagement mechanism. They are made up of members of the community who take an active interest in the provision of ambulance services in their area. There are currently 180 LACs across the state involving over 1,400 volunteers. Members know that they can have a direct bearing on the provision of pre-hospital patient care and work with the Queensland Ambulance Service to ensure that their community receives the best possible service available. LACs liaise directly with the officer in charge of the ambulance station. The OIC or a designated staff member is invited to attend meetings and is encouraged to provide an update on activity levels and performance in the local area. Feedback and advice about the provision of ambulance services are raised at the local level. LACs work with their community for the benefit of their community. All moneys raised by local fundraising activities, donations or bequests remain in their respective communities. While every member of our Gold Coast LAC is valued, today I want to particularly acknowledge Diane Hayson and Margaret Walters. They have been members of our LAC for nearly 15 years and work tirelessly to promote community participation in, and an awareness of, ambulance services. They have raised many thousands of dollars for the purchase of defibrillators and training mannequins, and a baby mannequin is the next proposed purchase. I also acknowledge Beth Coombes and her husband, John, who are dedicated members of the LAC. Beth, on a voluntary basis, runs free CPR courses on the Gold Coast on behalf of the LAC. 27 Oct 2011 Private Members’ Statements 3523

Southern Moreton Bay Islands; Victoria Point State High School, School Leaders Mr DOWLING (Redlands—LNP) (3.32 pm): Today I rise to update the House on the latest impact being suffered, or about to be suffered, by SMBI residents—the residents of the Southern Moreton Bay Islands. This impact relates to a council decision made at the general meeting yesterday afternoon, Wednesday, 26 October. This is a council that has failed to consult with the community despite all of its protestations about engagement and community consultation. Its decision has outraged my island communities. Before voting on one of the most significant changes in position, this council just ran ahead and changed its position as it relates to Weinam Creek at Redland Bay. The original proposals that were flagged and consulted on around Weinam Creek had no mention whatsoever of remote parking, yet my Southern Moreton Bay Islands communities will now be confronted with not only metered parking at the Weinam Creek area but many of them will be moved offsite to remote parking. We do not know where that remote car park is going to be. We do not know whether that car park will be secured adequately. We do not know whether it will be free. We also require a shuttle bus. Again, we do not know the timetabling or any of the detail. This council has just added the latest round of impacts and this is when the council still has not made its mind up about Weinam Creek and is currently engaging in partnerships for the redevelopment of the same area. Clearly, my community has had enough of this council. I bring that to the House’s attention. I acknowledge two school leaders from Victoria Point State High School who joined me today in the House for lunch and a tour—Rebecca Bertram and Anary Joyce. They are admirable people for our future. One is going to study medicine and the other is going to study physiotherapy. They were escorted by the deputy principal, Matt Sampson, a teacher. On the eve of World Teachers Day, I recognise his contribution to education.

Kallangur Electorate, Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Program Ms O’NEILL (Kallangur—ALP) (3.34 pm): I am happy to advise that rugby league players in Moreton Bay will benefit from $405,593 in Bligh government funding as part of the $20 million Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Program. The Moreton Bay Regional Council will receive that funding to construct fields to support rugby league and touch football at Mathieson Park, Petrie. What great news for the Pine Rivers Junior Rugby League Football Club and community. We love our rugby league, and I am sure the new football fields will be greatly appreciated. As a government, we want to make sure that our local sport and recreation clubs have the best facilities so that they can continue to provide that vital community service. We know that clubs are the lifeblood of communities, and by funding new facilities, upgrades and developments the Bligh government is helping to secure the future of grassroots clubs. This infrastructure funding is a win-win situation as it will create jobs and provide locals with the infrastructure that they need to get up, get out and get active. This latest Bligh government funding for sport and recreation complements other funding initiatives including the ‘Positive or it’s pointless’ campaign, the Local Sport and Recreation Jobs Plan, and the Sport and Recreation Active Inclusion Program. The Pine Rivers Junior Rugby League Football Club is an active, competitive, well-run club that produces winning teams and great sports. Games are well attended and the committee works hard. I was proud to assist with the Miss Pine Rivers pageant this year—a great event that gives recognition to the young women and girls who support the club, which showed just how much community support there is for this great club. They recently received a very welcome grant under the ‘Positive or it’s pointless’ campaign, which will be put to good use. It is a club with a great heart and a great future. With this terrific sport and recreation infrastructure grant, with new fields and teams, the future is even brighter.

Queensland Government, Infrastructure Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—LNP) (3.35 pm): I have occasionally wondered what happened to Peter Beattie’s trusty dog Rusty. Rusty was one of the former Premier’s greatest distractions and trumped as the Premier’s best friend. The current Premier has continued this legacy, as rust is the common theme of this Labor government. The only thing that has changed is the rust is getting worse. Recently on the Gold Coast site of Parklands rust has been discovered on installed roof panels prior to installation. Was that due to the government’s decision to purchase inferior grade roofing steel sourced from New Zealand? So this Labor government is installing rusting roof panels on what should have been our premium $1,76 billion hospital building. Why? It was cheap and possibly the money saved on quality assurance was redirected to the government’s PR unit. 3524 Private Members’ Statements 27 Oct 2011

Where else can Rusty be found? He is sitting at Roma Street station where the chairs and signage are in such a rusted state of disrepair that they are a safety hazard and, heaven forbid, a complete eyesore for any tourist coming to Queensland. Rusty was also found in the pipes of the Tugun desal plant after it was revealed 45 inferior pipe couplings were used that were unsuitable for the saltwater corrosive effect. I table that document. Tabled paper: Article, dated 13 January 2009, from goldcoast.com.au, titled ‘Tugun desalination rust stand-off’ [5751]. Rusty can also be found having his teeth checked at the Nerang Denture Clinic, where it has taken over 12 months, patient complaints, staff embarrassment and public humiliation for the government to make a decision on the replacement of equipment. He can also be found at the dilapidated sign on Gilston Road, Nerang which has been the subject of many complaints. The Labor government is passing the buck under the pretence that it is the council’s responsibility to repair the sign. Maybe the real reason for the payroll debacle is due to Rusty hiding in the computer system main- frame. I suggest the government take a look at the YouTube click ‘Rusty the narcoleptic dog’. For sure, Labor really needs Rusty now because, with constant incompetence and failure, it needs only a distraction of canine proportions to resolve their problems. Sunnybank Electorate, Student Accommodation Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (3.37 pm): The issue of the overcrowding of students in substandard rental accommodation in my electorate has been one that has concerned my constituents for a long time, particularly people who live in the suburbs of Sunnybank, Macgregor and Robertson. The issue is not about the behaviour of the students because overwhelmingly they are international students and they are well behaved, but we are all concerned about the overcrowding. The fact is that they are in substandard accommodation in many respects. They do not have adequate fire safety in many areas. Greedy landlords are converting garages, laundries et cetera into bedrooms so that they can put more students into these houses. These students are mostly exploited because they are paying too much for the accommodation. It has been a problem for some time. I am pleased that the government has put together a task force and done a preliminary report into the problem. I think this is the first stage of the government’s response. The government has been working very closely with the Brisbane City Council and it is not just our problem alone. We are very concerned. We have been working very closely with the fire department. They are out there every day inspecting these houses for this problem. Today—and this is a big issue and it takes more than two minutes to talk about it—I would like to praise Griffith University because it has put together its own task force which has been going for nearly two years now. Its task force has community representatives including local Neighbourhood Watch groups, local politicians and other interested people. Now they have put together two doctors from Griffith University who are undertaking a survey of the general community and of the student population to see how we can further improve the situation. This issue is about safety and security for those students who are in this accommodation. It is also about the reputation of our overseas education sector if, heaven forbid, anything goes wrong in overcrowded accommodation. I look forward to talking more about this issue in the future. Queensland Health, Patient Transfers Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (3.39 pm): Yesterday I asked the Minister for Health a question regarding rural and regional family members being directed by local hospital staff to transport ill or injured family members to alternative hospitals themselves instead of the hospital or ambulance transport being utilised. I asked if a directive had been given by Queensland Health to hospital staff to do so. I queried the decision-making parameters used by staff to ensure the safe and competent transfer of the patient and whether, if so directed, patient, driver and hospital staff are in any way covered if unforeseen circumstances occur. I raised the issue because of my concern about what, if any, consideration was given to the physical and mental state of the driver’s condition—in that they may be in shock themselves as they deal with their loved one’s condition or they may fear they might impact on their loved one’s condition by a lack of competency if the patient’s condition worsens during the trip. In one case, the wife feared her husband might die as he had heart issues and she felt totally inadequate and became very stressed and anxious during the trip. Regardless of whether her husband’s condition was as bad as she thought, her stress and anxiety were extremely real and, as she stated, it was quite overwhelming. In some instances, these trips can be in excess of two hours; they are not simply across a couple of suburbs. If anything does occur—the patient dies, complications arise or an accident occurs—who wears the responsibility when the hospital has directed the family member to transport the patient? In one instance, the driver was instructed to go directly to the hospital and not deviate. I ask: if the need was so imperative that a brief stop could not be made, surely it was serious enough to warrant 27 Oct 2011 Private Members’ Statements 3525 professional care as in the use of an ambulance? The minister, I believe, thought I was interested in the PTSS but I can assure the parliament I was not. It is a concern for the patient, the traumatised relative and the hospital staff who direct the relative to transport the patient. I do not believe this is an isolated case in the state and I still ask— (Time expired) Papua New Guinea Corrective Services Leadership Program Mr WENDT (Ipswich West—ALP) (3.41 pm): I had great pleasure in representing the Minister for Corrective Services, Neil Roberts, last week at a combined Papua New Guinea corrections leadership program and the Queensland Corrective Services reporting officer development program graduation dinner held at the Queensland Corrective Services Academy at Wacol. This function saw 27 probation and parole officers as well as nine senior officers from PNG Correctional Services completing the senior leadership programs. There was a memorandum of understanding signed by the Queensland corrections minister and the commissioner with their PNG counterparts in September last year which committed QCS to work with PNG Correctional Services in the development of a staff training program. This included modern rehabilitation and industries programs, best practice methods of dealing with offenders, improved security and incident management and of course strategic management for senior staff. I am advised that this is the second time this course has been conducted for the PNGCS. I was particularly pleased to see this collaboration between PNG and Queensland as I have visited this beautiful country with the minister and I am aware that Correctional Services leadership development is an important issue in that country. The QCS staff have completed the reporting officer development program after commencing training in August. I hope they have been able to take advantage of the opportunity to enhance their leadership styles, improve their communication skills and of course develop their risk management and mitigation abilities. As everyone here would know, custodial and probation and parole officers play a vital role in the criminal justice system in PNG and Queensland with their duties bringing them into regular contact with police, court staff, solicitors, service providers and, most importantly, the public. As such, their work— though not as glamorous as it might appear to be on television sometimes—is essential in the delivery of a world-class correctional system. This is something we are certainly doing here in Queensland. Becoming involved in corrections as an officer requires a range of qualities that include discipline, courage— (Time expired) Rural Fire Service Mr HOPPER (Condamine—LNP) (3.43 pm): The Queensland volunteer Rural Fire Service provides communities in rural and regional Queensland with an invaluable service. The countless hours spent volunteering to ensure the safety of people and their possessions should be recognised and appreciated by us all. Unfortunately, when it comes to funding, the Queensland volunteer Rural Fire Service is overlooked by the present government and has been for many years. The men and women who volunteer do more than just give freely of their time and expertise; they also have to find the money to keep their brigades going. This is a ridiculous situation. Queensland volunteer brigades endeavour to protect approximately 93 per cent of Queensland. Regrettably, this essential volunteer service receives less than eight per cent of the total fire budget. There are 239 urban and auxiliary stations in Queensland, 15 rural fire stations and 1,468 rural brigades, but the 239 urban and auxiliary stations receive 92 per cent of the funding. Volunteers of the Rural Fire Service are not only called upon to fight fires; the recent floods in Queensland saw volunteers evacuating residents, pumping water from buildings, searching for missing people and helping with the clean-up. Volunteers attend car accidents and witness more than their fair share of disturbing scenes, and how does this government reward rural fire service volunteers? Let me tell you: by not funding any first-aid training, by not funding any firefighting equipment, by not funding any fire appliances, by not funding any rural fire stations. This is the reward for the over 36,000 volunteers of the Queensland volunteer Rural Fire Service. Everton Electorate, Transport Mr WATT (Everton—ALP) (3.45 pm): Since I was elected 2½ years ago, improving traffic and transport in Brisbane’s north-west has been my top priority. The north-west is a great place to live but there is no doubt that congestion on our local roads is very frustrating. I have previously informed the House of my work with other north-west MPs to improve major intersections in our area. At the intersection of Samford Road and Wardell Street in Enoggera work has now started, with pipes and cables being relocated and surveyors are on site daily. I see them as I drive past on my way into parliament. 3526 Private Members’ Statements 27 Oct 2011

At the intersection of Stafford Road and South Pine Road at Everton Park, I have already convinced the government to do preliminary design work there and a number of options are under serious consideration. I recently started a campaign to convince the government to take this work further and to commit to fix the intersection. I have already had hundreds of form letters returned, so it does look like people care very deeply about fixing this intersection, which is right outside my electorate office. I recognise that fixing roads is not the only solution to our transport needs. For many people, driving is their only real transport option, but we do need to encourage as many people as possible to catch public transport. I am pleased to say that the Bligh government is taking action to make public transport in our area more affordable and accessible. Last week, we announced that starting in January frequent go card users will qualify for free travel. A new weekly cap will provide customers with free travel after 10 journeys have been made in a one-week period from Monday to Sunday. We are also increasing the off-peak discount to 20 per cent starting in January. We have also announced a review of train services on the Ferny Grove line to better meet commuter needs. The timetable review will aim to provide more regular and predictable services on the Ferny Grove line, providing a higher level of service for north-west residents. Later this year, commuters will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the existing timetable and suggestions to TransLink on how to improve services. Finally, I am hopeful of convincing the government to provide additional bus services for our area. I have lobbied the current and former transport ministers to improve our bus services, as there is no doubt that more are needed. In particular, we will need more regular services to run east-west along Stafford Road between Mitchelton and the Northern Busway when it reaches Kedron and we need more bus services between— (Time expired) Public Transport Mr EMERSON (Indooroopilly—LNP) (3.47 pm): Again this week we have seen this failed Bligh government trying to con commuters on the vital issue of public transport. Yesterday the opposition revealed that the government had secretly slashed a promise to deliver 200 new three-car passenger trains to replace and expand the city rail network. What was the bungling response by the transport minister? As the Courier-Mail reported today, the minister refused to give a straight answer to parliament. While the minister was fumbling through question time, what was her office telling the media? Their answer was that they were looking into it and could not say what contract bidders had been told or the details of the purchase. What we have here is a contract that is worth more than $2 billion of taxpayers’ money but the minister cannot give a straight answer and her office does not know. They later admitted the contract had been changed but then claimed that it was linked to the deferral eight months ago of the Cross River Rail project—except just three weeks ago Queensland Rail released its annual report which again confirmed that the contract was unchanged. So what we have here again is another bungle by this failed Labor government on public transport, just like the last major rollout of new passenger trains in 2007 when Labor built trains too big for Brisbane’s tunnel network. Queensland commuters should never forget that this is a Labor government that doubled the cost of train, bus and ferry fares to pay for its financial mismanagement and $100 million a week interest bill on its debt. Under this government, for the first time in 50 years public transport usage has gone backwards, dropping more than three million in the last year, and now it is slashing new trains because Labor has sent the state broke! Social Housing Garden Awards; Carers Week Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (3.49 pm): Last week Toowoomba’s green-thumbed social housing tenants were recognised by the Queensland government’s Social Housing Garden Awards. The annual awards recognise tenants who took pride in their gardens and helped improve not only their homes but neighbourhoods and communities. These gardens, and the time, effort and care taken with them, are a great example of how social housing tenants contribute to their communities. I congratulate the winners: the house garden section, Ms Perlita and Mr George Morrissy; the small space courtyard garden, Mr JL Keightley; the balcony garden, Mrs Margaret Winters; the children’s garden, Miss Jennifer Carroll; the common ground garden, Mr JL Keightley; the native gardener, Mr Collins; the new gardener, Mrs Christine Daly; and the edible garden, Mr A Reis. I also congratulate the Toowoomba regional tenants group for the fine work it has done to organise these events. These awards are a win for tenants, a win for Toowoomba’s community and a win for a waterwise environment. I also recognise that last week was Carers Week in Toowoomba. Carers Week is a time to recognise and thank carers across the community for their hard work and commitment. Carers provide an invaluable contribution to the people they care for in the broader community. Carers perform essential roles and provide support and friendship for people who cannot always independently 27 Oct 2011 Private Members’ Statements 3527 undertake routine daily activities. This year’s theme, ‘Anyone, Anytime Can Become a Carer’, is aimed to raise awareness of carers, the caring role and relationships and carer support services. I was pleased to be able to attend two events organised. One was the carers reflection service at the rose cottage garden in Newtown on Sunday afternoon and the other was a very large gathering at the carers day luncheon celebrations at Regents on the Lake. I congratulate Chris Allison from Carers Queensland for the great work that she does and the many volunteers, including Gwen McLeod, for the work they do in support of Carers Week. (Time expired) Gladstone Region, Fish Health Dr ROBINSON (Cleveland—LNP) (3.51 pm): The fisheries minister’s response in the House this week that the Gladstone Harbour problems can be explained away mainly as stressed-out barramundi is laughable, a disgrace and an abuse of science. The government has displayed tardiness, gross incompetence and negligence on the issue. This tired old government has been sitting on the facts for months and doing very little to protect fishermen, their livelihoods and health, other small marine- dependent businesses, recreational fishers, the fish stocks and other marine life in the Gladstone area. And now this long-term Labor government is engaging in what appears to be a cover-up, hiding as much as possible from the public and pre-empting its own independent scientific panel before it even brings down any findings. Stressed-out barramundi does not explain 35 sick fishermen who are working in some form or another with diseased fish. Stressed-out barramundi does not explain why fish catch levels as high as 80 per cent are diseased. Stressed-out barramundi does not explain the conflict in water-quality data originating from both government and non-government scientific sources. Stressed- out barramundi does not explain why salmon, shark and other species that have been caught are suffering from the same disease. The minister says that large numbers of barramundi flushed into the harbour have become stressed and that this has caused the sickness, but how does that explain the saltwater species of fish and shark that did not originate upriver and that are similarly diseased? These fish were already in the harbour and were not flushed into the harbour by the floodwaters, yet they have the same condition. In the minister’s gaga land of pseudoscience and political spin, maybe he thinks the stress of the barramundi is passed on to the salmon and shark through some kind of stressed-out syndrome. This is clearly ludicrous and the minister should be removed from the process immediately before he destroys the good name of science and the local seafood industry entirely. Queensland Health, Payroll System Hon. SD FINN (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (Minister for Government Services, Building Industry and Information and Communication Technology) (3.53 pm): This morning in question time the member for Mudgeeraba asked a question regarding a cabinet decision which she portrayed as being an additional cost for developing the Health payroll system. The question had the potential to mislead members of the House and her subsequent media release was similarly misleading. The cabinet decision relates to funds allocated to the implementation of the recommendations of the PricewaterhouseCoopers review of Shared Services. These are not funds allocated to the Health payroll solution. The cabinet decision quoted by the member refers to funds to implement and maintain the Shared Services environment as recommended by PWC. Members will recall that the PWC report arose following the work the government commissioned to fix up the Health payroll system. This included an independent report into the structure of Shared Services as part of a rigorous and detailed evaluation of service delivery. The report recommended restructuring government services by separating one whole-of-government environment into health, education and the rest-of-government environments. All of those have been facts that have long been in the public arena. The amounts noted in the cabinet decision are simply the identified costs of establishing the three environments and maintaining them post 2013. The government is committed to implementing the PWC recommendations. Many of those recommendations have been implemented already. We are on track to achieve the key recommendation, and that is that the full environment is in place servicing Queensland in 2013. These recommendations came to government through an independent report. They are aimed at delivering service efficiencies and they are supported by the Queensland government, both in policy and through financial commitment. SkillsTech Queensland Mr MALONE (Mirani—LNP) (3.55 pm): I rise to speak in relation to the financial situation of SkillsTech Queensland, a TAFE institute specialising in trade training, the financial performance of which I questioned at an estimates committee hearing regarding the financial years 2010-11. At the estimates committee hearing on 15 July the minister responded by saying— ... the projected net operating result for SkillsTech is indeed zero. This estimate may differ to the actual end-of-year position ... finalised in August. 3528 Private Members’ Statements 27 Oct 2011

Further prompting forced him to admit that the actual year-to-date position in April for SkillsTech was a $3.39 million deficit and that the end-of-year financial position to June was a $1.719 million deficit. The forecast annual budget target for the year was a balanced budget. Yet in answer to question on notice No. 1423, which I asked on 6 September, the minister now has admitted that the actual deficit of SkillsTech for the financial year 2010-11 is indeed $10.27 million and then tried to blame the GFC and the floods. The GFC began in 2008 and SkillsTech actually made its only surplus—quite small—in 2009- 10. I would contend that either the minister set out to deliberately mislead the House or his response at the estimates committee hearing was either incompetent or lazy in his analysis of the financial information at that time. With no more trading for the financial year, how was the position going to improve? I base this assertion on the facts that in the space of approximately three months from when the question was answered by the minister at the estimates committee hearing to a following answer being given to question on notice— (Time expired) Peninsula Developmental Road Mr O’BRIEN (Cook—ALP) (3.57 pm): In my eight years in this parliament I have worked hard to improve services and infrastructure in my electorate. The piece of infrastructure that I have worked hardest on to improve is the Peninsula Developmental Road. I am happy to report to the House that by this Christmas the Peninsula Developmental Road will be fully bitumen sealed to Laura. It is an amazing achievement—something that was only a dream less than five years ago. There are three new bridges going in as well over Ruth Creek and Carrolls Crossing. They will be open soon, and a new bridge is emerging across the Laura River which will be finished early next year as well. But there is more. We are not resting on our laurels. Today, I can announce that an additional $10 million will be spent on the Peninsula Developmental Road this year to bitumen seal the road north of Laura. We have now fully bitumen sealed the road to Laura and we are moving on to the next stage in making sure that we continue the bitumen seal of the road to improve accessability to Cape York Peninsula. I thank the Minister for Main Roads, Craig Wallace, for his work in supporting me in getting additional funds for the Peninsula Developmental Road and putting this additional $10 million to bitumen seal the PDR north of Laura. Up to 12 kilometres of the PDR will be sealed with this new additional money. It is a vital link for agriculture, tourism and mining on Cape York Peninsula and the sealing will significantly improve access for these industries and demonstrate our ongoing commitment to the needs of remote communities, particularly remote Aboriginal communities, and the Cape York community of Weipa. There will be initial sealing work along the Musgrave section of the PDR before continuing south between the Dixie Road turn-off and Police Camp Creek. Civil Partnerships Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—Ind) (3.59 pm): I rise to acknowledge the rights and importance of gay people. They deserve to live, love and worship whomever and however they please. I believe that they are some of the most interesting, likeable, funny, talented, intelligent, caring and fascinating people in the world. So in the light of recent media reports about a bill before this place, I am very disappointed at, and I utterly reject, criticism that I and others not supporting the bill are homophobic. A phobia is something that people have a fear of. I do not fear gay people. They are a valued and important part of our society. Just like all other minority groups who live in our tolerant, Western Christian democracy, they should be protected from all threats and discrimination. In the current debate about gay marriage, the matter of official discrimination against gay people in Queensland has been raised. Discrimination against gay people was officially addressed in 2008. As respected doctor David van Gend pointed out in a recent media article— Non-discrimination against same-sex couples is exactly what federal Parliament achieved in 2008 when more than 80 pieces of legislation were amended by a bipartisan majority. Homosexual couples now enjoy effective equality with married couples in every way short of marriage. Just as I respect gay people’s values and traditions, I ask that gay people respect my values and traditions. One of those cultural beliefs is that marriage is a divine gift exclusively to a man and woman. I will feel discriminated against if gay people, a minority group, try to interfere with my traditional cultural values and impose their own. If gay people continue to attack my cultural values knowing that it will cause me and many others distress, I will begin to think they are in fear of me and people who share my tolerant, Western democratic values. Mr Lucas: You hypocrite! Mr MESSENGER: They would then have to explain their heterophobia— Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms O’Neill): Order! Attorney, that was unparliamentary. I ask you to withdraw. Mr Lucas: ‘Hypocrite’? I withdraw. 27 Oct 2011 Building Boost Grant Bill 3529

MINISTERIAL PAPER

Electoral Commission of Queensland Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Attorney-General, Minister for Local Government and Special Minister of State) (4.01 pm), by leave: I lay upon the table of the House the 2010-11 annual report of the Electoral Commission of Queensland. Tabled paper: Electoral Commission of Queensland—Annual Report 2010-11 [5752].

BUILDING BOOST GRANT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from p. 3510, on motion of Mr Fraser— That the bill be now read a second time. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (4.02 pm): I rise to speak to the Building Boost Grant Bill 2011. I have discussed this bill with some people in the building industry in my electorate. Whilst they welcome the incentives that the Building Boost and the first home owner grant presents, they did say that in great measure the benefit of the grants has been eaten up by the additional costs that have been imposed on building projects by both state government and local councils. I think it has to be recognised that, whilst it is of assistance to people who want to buy a new home, there have also been added costs. So the benefit of this $10,000 Building Boost has certainly been partially eroded. As members would know, there is significant industrial development in my electorate. There have been two major pressure points and they are most concerning. One is the hospital—and previously in this chamber I have raised the lack of services at Gladstone Hospital—and the other is affordable housing. Many people who are in service industries or who are in more moderately paid industries are finding it incredibly difficult to afford to live there, and many are leaving. I think it is a tragedy to unravel the social fabric. Families and individuals who have lived in an area for five, 10, 15 or 20 years have to move—not through choice but because of the cost of living, in particular the cost of housing and rentals. They have no choice but to leave. We are losing a lot of people, particularly young couples and older people on a pension who are in rental accommodation. The benefit of this bill in my electorate is that people will be encouraged to build houses for other than a primary place of residence. I think that is one of the benefits of the Building Boost, not to undermine the value of the first home owner grant. The Building Boost will be an encouragement for people who may be feeling relatively secure financially and who can see that there is a good market for rentals in the electorate of Gladstone and may be able to extend themselves to use this incentive to build additional housing. The stamp duty imposition on the principal place of residence has certainly hurt as well, and that cannot be argued. This bill puts in place the Building Boost. It has a limited life. There are certainly parameters within which the funding can be accessed. I have had a look at the preclusions and I do not think they are unreasonable. I would hope that not only individuals in the community—and the Building Boost is certainly geared towards individuals and private enterprise investing in new accommodation units—but also the government will be encouraged to invest in affordable housing in great measure, and not just in ones and twos. I am speaking about not just the department of housing but also Education, Emergency Services and Police. Those workers are the ones who have been so significantly impacted by rent increases up to $600 and $650. While some of the benefit of the Building Boost as proposed is undermined by increases in things such as stamp duty on a principal place of residence, environmental levies, the carbon tax and other fees and charges, I still welcome it as an encouragement for people to build new and additional houses. I support the bill. Mr CRANDON (Coomera—LNP) (4.06 pm): The Building Boost Grant Bill 2011 is actually the second bill reviewed by the Finance and Administration Committee. I certainly congratulate the support and research staff on their efforts in assisting the committee to put the bill to bed, so to speak. The committee held two public briefings. The first was on 6 October this year and witnesses included representatives from Treasury, the Office of State Revenue and others. The second public hearing was held on 12 October and witnesses included representatives from right across the spectrum in the industry: Master Builders Association, Housing Industry Association Queensland, Builders Labourers Federation, REIQ, Urban Development Institute of Queensland and Property Council of Australia, Queensland division. In addition, we had witness submissions for consideration. One written submission referred to a quote by well-known economist Saul Eslake from a story he wrote for the Sydney Morning Herald back in March this year. So clearly it did not specifically relate to this particular bill or program. The article states— 3530 Building Boost Grant Bill 27 Oct 2011

It’s hard to think of any government policy that has been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that it doesn’t work, than the policy of giving cash to first-home buyers— so clearly he was talking about first home buyers in his story— in the belief that doing so will promote home ownership. That is interesting enough. I thought, ‘I better go and have another look at the Eslake story to see what his arguments are exactly.’ I will quote a few points from his story. He starts out with that particular quote I just read. The article, which appeared on 16 March 2011, goes on— The federal government began giving cash grants to first home buyers in 1964 when, at the urging of the New South Wales division of the Young Liberal Movement (whose president at the time was a young John Howard), the Menzies government began paying Home Savings Grants of up to $500 to ‘married or engaged couples under the age of 36’ on the basis of $1 for every $3 saved in an ‘approved form’ (generally with a financial institution whose major business was lending for housing) in the three years before buying their first home, provided that the home was valued at no more than $14,000. That is a little bit different from the figures that we are considering today. He went on to say that the scheme was abolished by the Whitlam government in 1973 in favour of an income tax deduction. It was reintroduced by the Fraser government in 1976. It was replaced by the Hawke government in 1983 with the first home owner assistance scheme. It was abolished by Hawke in 1990 and reintroduced by the Howard government in 2000. On two occasions since 2000 the FHOG, as it is called, has been temporarily increased in response to actual or feared slumps in housing activity. Over the past decade most state and territory governments have topped up this basic FHOG. Governments have thus been providing cash handouts to first home buyers for almost half a century, yet strikingly the homeownership rate has never been higher than the 72 per cent recorded at the time of the 1961 census, three years before the first of the schemes began. Saul Eslake’s argument is that cash handouts for homebuyers has simply added to upward pressure on housing prices, enriching vendors while doing precisely nothing to help young people into homeownership. Eslake puts forward an interesting argument in relation to this concept. It is almost ingrained in our psyche that to get the building industry working we need to throw some dollars at it and see what comes about. I suppose the question is: are we exacerbating this issue by extending the offer of free cash to other than first homeowners? Put another way: are we making the vendor revisit the ‘let’s put some profit back into the deal’ concept? I do not think that anybody would suggest that right now vendors are on a win with any handouts that are occurring. They are struggling to make ends meet, as can be seen by some of the statistics that have been submitted our way. Should we reconsider the whole concept? Should we, as a state, have a closer look at what they were doing in the 1950s and early 1960s that seemed to be so successful as opposed to this cash handout that perhaps has exacerbated the cost of housing, which I certainly believe it has in past times? Coming back to the public meetings, a good overall view was given by government witnesses as to their thinking. In the first public briefing they argued that the need was there to start the grant on 1 August 2011. They needed time, they said, to get mechanisms in place to ensure that people knew what they were going in for. They suggested that if on the night of the budget it was on for young and old, the next day there was a possibility that there would be some profiteering all of a sudden or people would be signed up only to find that they are not eligible for the $10,000. The argument was put forward and ultimately we accepted that that was a reasonable argument. It has been identified by other speakers and accepted by the industry that there was a slump in activity between the date of the budget and 1 August. There was a definite downturn in the number of signed contracts and so forth that occurred. Part of what we are picking up now, part of the statistics that were referred to by the member for Cairns and others, is the lag that did not occur during that period to 1 August. The bill is loosely based, they told us, on FHOG, with obvious and necessary changes that needed to occur to make it available to other first homeowners. They went on to outline applications by statistical division. The member for Cairns did, in fact, update the figures that they provided to us. They provided statistical division figures as at 7 October. At that time there were just a couple of applications short of 700 throughout Queensland—263 of those were in Brisbane. Sadly, the Gold Coast, which the majority of my electorate is in, fell well short of what I would have expected at 36. The latest figures, as quoted by the member for Cairns, are that there are now 992 applications. So there has been an increase of 290 applications in just two weeks. If we put it into perspective, it is a situation where in the first three months we have just short of, let us call it, a thousand applications in the system. We have three months to go and the target overall is 14,000. In this next three-month period we have to try to pick up 13,000 applications to fully take up the $140 million. We had fewer than 700 applications by 7 October. We now have fewer than a thousand by 21 October, as the member for Cairns indicated. We have something like eight per cent of the money taken up with 92 per cent to go. Let us hope that we can do it. Let us hope that people will start to get enthusiastic about this grant and we can see the industry move forward. It is difficult to see that it will be taken up. One question that I have is: what will we do with the left- over funds? If we have $140 million and we only end up handing out $70 million, what are we going to do with the other $70 million. Should that shortfall somehow or other go back into the industry in some way, shape or form to give the industry the boost that did not occur, that we hoped would occur, during this six-month period? I think serious consideration needs to be given to exactly how we address that. 27 Oct 2011 Building Boost Grant Bill 3531

As for the second public meeting, the industry was very concerned about a number of aspects. The UDIA provided us with a flyer that it had handed out. It is referred to as the Development and construction industry performance report. The headline is ‘Industry still waiting for recovery and jobs’. That report is dated 10 September 2011—well after the commencement of this program. Within this report the indications are that nothing startling is happening at this point in time and they are hoping and praying that something in fact will come on. In fact, on the last page there is a story there by Gary Emmett, construction economist, Turner &Townsend. His headline is ‘Turbulent times will ease’. Let us hope that that is the case for the industry. I have already mentioned the lag between the budget and 1 August. The witnesses did indeed indicate that that downturn did occur. People were slow to take up the grant applications. They were divided on whether the scheme should be extended or not. We received different feedback from different parts of the industry in that regard as to whether it should be extended if the money is not taken up. That is one possibility. If it falls short, can the scheme be extended? The point was made that, if it was going to be extended, for goodness sake do not extend it until two weeks before the end of the time line so that as many contracts as possible can go through the system. Some other comments that came from the industry were that this grant system was focused on only 15 per cent of the market. The rest of the market is second-hand homes that are languishing. In recent days we have seen reports in the paper that we are at an all-time low when it comes to that market. There have been significant downturns in the Queensland second-hand house market. There were some issues raised with the committee. They were very critical. The people from the Real Estate Institute of Queensland, those representing the second-hand house market, were critical of the stamp duty increase. They spoke of the hit for people trying to sell their property and then going on to perhaps take advantage of this grant. They were not able to sell their property and part of the reason they felt was the stamp duty increase. They believe it is having a slowing effect on the market. The comment was made that first home buyers in the marketplace are down from 28 per cent to around 15 per cent. Once again, reflecting on the Eslake story, we have a significantly reduced first home buyer market. Obviously, there are a lot of reasons for that. There are affordability issues and other factors such as employment and unemployment et cetera. The suggestion has been made by members in this place and certainly people in the marketplace that it is probably more a marketing boost than a Building Boost because so much old stock is being caught up in this—that is, clearing the old stock. The hope is that the old stock will be replaced with new stock. In other words, the building industry will build new stock. If things stay the way they are, perhaps they will sit back and say, ‘Hang on a second, let us not jump into it at this stage of the game. Let us see whether or not there is going to be a bit of lift so we have some certainty as to whether or not that new stock is going to sold.’ If they start building new stocks now and they have not got a contract on them by 1 February 2012 then that $10,000 grant will go out the window and people will not qualify for it. Perhaps we need to give consideration to extending that in some way. I wish to address the issue of the very poor, in my view, number of applications—36, I think there have been—for the Gold Coast up until 7 October. What was the reason for that? Was it perhaps the $600,000 limit? Examples were given during our hearings that the $600,000 limit is too low. One example was that a block of land was $400,000 so one does not get much of a house for $200,000 to put on a $400,000 block of land. There are some difficulties for areas like the Gold Coast which has a high unemployment rate. I see many tradies heading up the highway to Brisbane. Many others are unemployed or underemployed. They are not getting any work or very little work. They are perhaps just working for one builder at the moment as opposed to in the past working for two, three or four builders and developers. Perhaps some thought needs to be given to that. Perhaps some adjustments can be made to those limits for particular areas like the Gold Coast. In summary, we were hoping for a clawback to a better and more healthy building industry. We have said more than once that we support the bill. From a committee perspective, we went through the bill— Mr Wendt interjected. Mr CRANDON: The majority perhaps did. There are some lumps in it. There are some spiky bits in it. There are some reasons some of the comments have been negative. If members have a read through what I have been saying they will find that I have been talking about some pretty negative things. I have some uncertainty as to whether we are going to get there. I live in hope that we are able to make some adjustments to the system, such as the $600,000 limit, to try to give the Gold Coast—my area—a bit of a chance to get some of the business. It might just be enough to tip people over to signing contracts on the Gold Coast and give some of those chippies and plumbers who are unemployed or underemployed an opportunity to get some local work. When they are travelling to Brisbane or travelling across to the other side of Brisbane to get some work— Mr Wendt interjected. 3532 Building Boost Grant Bill 27 Oct 2011

Mr CRANDON: I will take the member’s interjection—or up to Ipswich. Mr Wendt: They’re building up there. Mr CRANDON: They are building up there. There is a cost factor. There is a toll road that they have to pay for. There are fuel costs and so forth. Are they paying more money, member for Ipswich West? Are they paying more money in Ipswich? Should we encourage them to go there? Mr Wendt interjected. Mr CRANDON: Okay. We support the bill. Once again, I thank the committee and the research staff for their efforts in scrutinising this particular legislation. The last small part of the bill—the almost forgotten part of the bill—is the amendments to the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act. The amendments relate to fees to cover costs incurred. Yes, the fees are there, but they are fairly minuscule additional costs in the whole scheme of things. We are talking about major projects. We are talking in the tens of thousands of dollars. As far as the committee was concerned, we did not have a great deal of concern with that particular aspect of the bill. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. KL STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (Minister for Community Services and Housing and Minister for Women) (4.26 pm): Those in the LNP talk down Queensland. They talk down our economy. They talk down industries. We are optimistic about our future. We are optimistic about the capacity we have to bounce back after one of the worst natural disasters we have ever experienced in this state and to bounce back after a global financial crisis that has whacked us pretty hard as well. We are optimistic. We are looking forward to a bright future and we are building the foundations for a bright future. I support this bill because the Building Boost is one of those steps we are taking, one of those levers we are pulling in order for the construction industry to bounce back and grow as well. It is showing signs of doing just that. Recent figures show that our housing industry is recovering. The Queensland seasonally adjusted residential dwelling approvals for new houses in the June quarter to 2011 were 4,111—up from 3,981 in the March quarter. The approvals for flats, units and town houses in the same quarter were an increase on the March quarter, with approvals at 2,097. There are a number of levers that we have been pulling. Our $18 billion infrastructure program is one of the main ones that is keeping the building industry going around the state. As I have visited places like Cairns over the last couple of years I have seen that it is the public works, the public housing, the public projects that have kept a number of the local builders going. We will continue that. It is only Labor that is going to do that. We went to the last election promising jobs, jobs, jobs, and that is what we are delivering. The LNP went to the last election promising cuts, cuts and cuts. That is what they would deliver if they ever got their hands on the reins of government. The areas of my portfolio where we are trying to stimulate the construction industry is in the public housing program. Through our $500 million Queensland Future Growth Fund that has been operating for a few years now and then with the investment on top of that of the nation building jobs scheme—the stimulus package for housing—we have seen unprecedented investment in public housing and unprecedented jobs in building public housing right across the state. That allocation of $1.085 billion has meant 4,034 dwellings have been built under that stimulus package alone. It has also meant the equivalent of over 6,600 jobs in the building and related industries. The other tool in our kitbag is the National Rent Affordability Scheme. That is an additional subsidy to both the construction industry and low-income households looking for somewhere affordable to rent. We now have 1,097 new, affordable NRAS dwellings that have already been delivered in Queensland. We estimate that a further 2,900 will be completed during this financial year. The Queensland and Australian governments have approved 11,311 NRAS incentives in Queensland—all to be delivered before June 2014. Round 4 has been finalised, with 4,370 additional NRAS incentives approved in October, and those incentives are for housing all around the state. Queensland received 30 per cent of the national total for NRAS. We wanted to be in there getting our fair share, and we got more than that. We are putting up our funds from the state government through our budget to make sure NRAS is a success in this state. We are delivering for Queensland’s construction workers. We are delivering for families who need affordable housing. That is in stark contrast to the LNP, who talk down our economy, talk down our industry and talk down our future. Mr SORENSEN (Hervey Bay—LNP) (4.30 pm): I rise to speak to the Building Boost Grant. Bill. I would like to thank the committee members, especially the member for Ipswich West, Wayne Wendt, and the member for Mermaid Beach, Ray Stevens, in relation to raising the matter of related-party transactions. This matter was brought to my attention last week by a constituent who came to see me about the new home that she would like to build. This young woman, who has been through a marriage break-up, has worked and struggled most of her life, yet she has managed to bring up two children on her own and has saved to the build her own home. The building grant is just that bit extra that may mean floor coverings and blinds or just that bit extra needed to finish her dream. 27 Oct 2011 Building Boost Grant Bill 3533

She was told by the Office of State Revenue that she was not eligible for the Building Boost grant because hers was a related-party transaction. Her brother is a builder. Notwithstanding that, she had an arms-length contract in place with her brother, who is a registered builder. This is a standard Master Builders contract form. It includes all the necessary items and specifications required to build a home. Yet if this lady were a first home buyer this related-party business would not apply and she would be eligible—same person, same deal. What is the point of this provision? We need to at least consider this provision in detail. We can have an investor build a home, get the grant and rent the house, yet this woman may not even get the grant. A first home buyer cannot rent the home if they want the first home owner grant. I thought the objective of this grant was to give the building industry a boost—as simple as that. The bill refers to the definition of ‘a related person’ as being the same as section 61 of the Duties Act 2001. But there is no land transfer involved in this building contract; the lady already owns the land. The building contract does not attract duty. I can see that perhaps the sale of land with a newly built home as defined, where duty may otherwise be payable between the related parties, may need to be watched. However, perhaps we need to consider that eligibility for a Building Boost grant for a building contract between related persons should include the criteria that the owner must not sell for 12 months, as with the first home owner grant, and that there is no transfer of title. I will add that the grant should also cover granny flats. The last time I looked, a granny was usually a relative. This related-party transaction may raise interesting issues in this regard in certain transactions. In his speech on 8 September the Treasurer clearly stated on the one hand— However, it is not relevant who occupies the home. For example, the home may be occupied by a family member or rented to a tenant. On the other hand, he stated further that related-party transactions are ineligible, as are contracts to purchase which do not attract transfer duty, unless the exemption for first homes, manufactured homes or charities applies. I put it that the original intention may have referred to related-party transactions that did not incur duty, not just related parties. Since a building contract does not attract duty anyway, I fail to see the relevance this has. I get back to what I said before: there is no land or title transfer in a building contract. When the young lady picked up the application guide she saw that it states— The eligible transaction is between related persons unless the applicant qualifies for FHOG for the home. That excludes her from this whole situation. I would like to thank the committee for all they have done to try to rectify this situation. It is good to see that there is some sort of ex gratia assistance available to this woman, because I think she is in a pretty difficult predicament. When she came to see me she said that she had no hope of getting it. It was only that her mother brought her in and said, ‘Look, we’ll give this a go and see where we can go with it.’ This is a situation that arises when people end up in the divorce courts and they lose their homes. Should they be classed as first home owners again? It is a pretty difficult situation. It would be good to see some sort of justice for someone like this, who has worked all of her life and has contributed to our society and should not be penalised. Ms JOHNSTONE (Townsville—ALP) (4.36 pm): I rise to make a brief contribution in support of the Building Boost Grant Bill 2011. This Building Boost is important for the people of Townsville for a number of reasons. I am not going to reprosecute the arguments in support of this bill. Suffice it to say, while Townsville continues to do relatively well in difficult economic times, I welcome the aims and objectives of the Building Boost. Even though we are doing okay, some industry leaders in Townsville are predicting a slowdown in the new construction market which gives me even more reason to support this bill. The $10,000 will not only assist local builders and tradies but also support entry into the housing market for future residential and investor buyers. It makes sense for it to be used as a trigger to support the industry and obviously will have a flow-on effect to other sectors such as retail and hospitality. I am advised that over 1,000 people have applied for the boost, and I encourage as many people as possible to take advantage of the offer. I wish to make a brief comment on proposed amendments to the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971. The proposed amendment includes a head of power and table of fees to enable the recovery of costs for government activities relating to infrastructure facilities of significance, or IFS. It came as a surprise to me that when the Coordinator-General declares a major private project as significant there is no mechanism to charge costs to the government upfront. When the IFS provisions were introduced in 1999, there were no fees or cost-recovery provisions included. The need to introduce fees for applications relating to IFS was identified as the number of IFS applications increased and as more government resources were required to process the applications. 3534 Building Boost Grant Bill 27 Oct 2011

Since the introduction of the IFS provisions there have been a total of eight IFS projects approved, with five of these approvals in the last two years and another two applications currently under consideration. This rapid expansion of the IFS service has occurred without matching additional resources. The fees and cost-recovery provisions will ensure the Coordinator-General has the necessary capacity to assess all new project applications. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. SD FINN (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (Minister for Government Services, Building Industry and Information and Communication Technology) (4.39 pm): I rise to make a few brief comments in support of the bill before the House. I am delighted to stand here as the minister with responsibility for the building industry to support this bill that delivers a stimulus to an industry that is facing tough times. I have often commented when I have been with stakeholders that if you could choose a time to be the building industry minister it may not have been right now given the difficulties that industry has faced as it has come out of the global financial crisis. Nonetheless, that has provided an opportunity for me as the responsible minister and the government to develop legislation like this that can assist that industry. Budgets are obviously challenging balancing acts and it is the role of government, through its budget process, to determine how to support industries that need support and how to best manage a finite resource. I am pleased that this budget was able to bring in a boost to the building industry and at the same time maintain the low levels of stamp duty in Queensland. There are some reasons to be optimistic about what is happening in the building industry. The global financial crisis has gone on a bit longer than many people expected, certainly longer than all of us hoped. But what we are seeing now is good reason to be optimistic. When we stand on this side of the House talking about optimism it is not based on nothing; it is based on the way we see things. It is based on a clear indication through some of the statistics that we are seeing. The HIA figures show new house sales have risen by 9.8 per cent in August. The recent UDIA performance reports indicated a 4.4 per cent increase in dwelling approvals in the three months to July. The BIS Shrapnel report referred to national building commencements and a recovery of eight per cent in 2011-12. That was one per cent in Queensland in that period but an acceleration of 16 per cent in Queensland in 2012-13. The Treasury’s statistical report, which talks about approvals for development, shows that in Far North Queensland councils are approving development, with 944 residential lots in the March quarter, an increase of 13 per cent on last year. Then we have the ABS building approvals report for August, which showed dwelling approvals increased by 19.7 per cent in Queensland, above a national average of 11.4 per cent. Seasonally adjusted, we see an increase in Queensland of 16 per cent compared with a decline of one per cent nationally. What we are seeing is some light emerging in the building industry, and that has not happened independently of the availability of the Building Boost in the Queensland economy. We know that building and construction are critical to the Queensland economy, with 17.7 per cent of GSP contributed by the building and construction industry, some 237,000 workers and a value to the economy of some $46 billion or more. That means that it is central to the Queensland economy, and that is why government develops ways that it can stimulate this industry and also keep it going. Other members have mentioned the capital investment that has come with the state budget. We all know that the government has had to take some tough economic decisions in recent times. We are proud of those decisions. We have had to take them because of the global financial crisis. We are not afraid to take those tough decisions, but we are also not afraid to rejig the budget to stimulate sections of the economy that need assistance. I should say that the Building Boost is one aspect of the work that is being done in the building industry to stimulate activity. If you look at just the last 12 months, we have seen decisions about using building work to stimulate the Townsville CBD, building work in Bowen Hills, and building work in Ipswich as part of the decentralisation program stimulated by the government as anchor tenants or as builders. We have seen support for the Boggo Road Urban Village development. We have seen support for the RNA redevelopment. We have announced the construction of 10 cyclone shelters. We have announced a big capital spend in our schools through the Flying Start program, which will deliver building stimulus across Queensland. We are building hospitals on the Sunshine Coast, the Gold Coast and the Royal Children’s Hospital. The state Supreme Court building will open in the middle of next year. There is significant building work going on in the Queensland economy, supported and assisted by the Queensland government. In addition, the Building Revival Forum in April this year identified some of the needs of the industry, and that is where we came from with infrastructure charges caps the Major Projects Office and a stimulus for the economy, which we are debating today. This is good policy. It is targeted at an industry needing assistance. It continues to maintain our low stamp duty regime, and I commend the bill to the House. Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development and Trade) (4.45 pm), in reply: I thank all members of the parliament for their contributions to the debate. I particularly thank them for their indications of support for the bill. I particularly thank those members of the government who are not only going to vote for the bill but who also spoke in support of the bill as opposed to those opposite who said they would be voting for the bill but in fact 27 Oct 2011 Building Boost Grant Bill 3535 spoke against the bill. There is a bit of that going around this week. There are those people on the other side who say they hold a view and are going to do something different. That has been something we have seen on the other side where people support an action but are going to take no action, whereas on this occasion they have said that they do not support the scheme but are going to take the action of voting for it. It is no wonder that many people out there are wondering whether the LNP is in fact Arthur or Martha. Ultimately, let us be very clear about what this is designed to do. It is designed to provide a boost to the Queensland building industry, into the housing market, to get people into the housing market, to provide that assistance, to generate investment activity and to act as a clearing house for the property market in particular sectors where they found difficulties borne of oversupply during the times of easy credit of the past. We all know the way in which that story has ended. Ultimately, let me make these points. ABS lending finance for the purchase of existing dwellings rose 19.8 per cent in the August quarter compared to March. What we also saw was that building approvals in August were up by 1.6 per cent or, on the figures that are usually used by the shadow Treasurer to make points because they are much more volatile and that is seasonally adjusted figures, I would note that the rise in August was 19.8 per cent. I note the absence of his reference to those figures despite ultimately using the convenience of seasonally adjusted figures on other occasions. Can I deal in substance with a number of issues raised during the debate? I touched on the issue around ex gratia payments and related party transactions in the second reading speech at the start of this second reading debate today. I re-emphasise, especially for the benefit of the member for Mermaid Beach—who I think was operating under a misapprehension; I acknowledge, however, that he has been involved in the detailed committee meetings—that it is the case that eligibility for the first home owners grant does convert into eligibility for the Building Boost. The reason for that is under the first home owner grant there is a residency requirement which is proved, and that provides the mechanism or the filter and the legal ability to be able to prevent transactions that otherwise might be designed to skirt around the scheme or to provide for scam transactions. In the absence of those, the best way to provide for genuine transactions between related parties is to pursue an ability to claim for that through the Office of State Revenue, through the Commissioner of State Revenue and through the guidelines that I tabled in the debate today. The practical effect of that is exactly the same. Ultimately, that is the best method to ensure that we not only protect the scheme from possible exploitation but also deliver a benefit to those generally entitled to it. Secondly, there was request for an update of the number of applications. I can advise the House that as of yesterday the number of applications is now 1,113. In fact, the number approved is 379, but I want to make this point: as at 30 September, just a few weeks ago, it was 569. In the week after that it jumped to 698. In the week after that it jumped to 843 and in the week after that it jumped to 992. So we do see the hockey stick approach to the graph at the moment, which is what industry and other officials were talking about at the time that the committee hearing took place. I am confident that, as with both the original first home owner grant and the subsequent first home owner boost in its different iterations, what you see is a build-up as the public becomes aware of it and as decisions are made. In the end, this is an integral part of the budget proposition that we put forward. We cannot have the moaning and hand-wringing about the nature of dwelling investment without action to address that. I want to make a point about those on the other side who took the view that in fact there was some great change in the way in which the scheme had operated as designed at budget. That is not the case. What we have done here is put in place the arrangements from the start that will enable the bill to operate. This, in the end, is about providing support to the Queensland economy, to the housing sector and to the thousands of jobs that are generated in that sector. Most importantly, it is about giving people a hand up into the housing market. Today we saw data that the average house price in Brisbane is around $430,000. This measure is targeted at $600,000, which is well above that average rate talked about in today’s reports. Clearly, this is about making sure that we get the balance right. It is not about mansions for millionaires, but it is about a boost for the building industry and the housing industry. I commend the bill to the House. 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 135— Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Acting Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development and Trade) (4.51 pm): I seek leave to move my amendments en bloc. Leave granted. 3536 Building Boost Grant Bill 27 Oct 2011

Mr FRASER: I move the following amendments— 1 Clause 18 (Transactions that are not eligible transactions) Page 20, lines 28 to 30 and page 21, lines 1 to 3— omit, insert— ‘(d) a legally binding arrangement made on or after 14 June 2011 for which the sole or main purpose is to defer the transaction commencement day for a home purchase contract or home building contract to 1 August 2011 or a later day before 1 February 2012 (the post-eligibility period), including, for example— ’. 2 Clause 18 (Transactions that are not eligible transactions) Page 21, lines 4 and 5, from ‘terminating’ to ‘contract’— omit, insert— ‘terminating a home purchase or building contract made before 1 August 2011’. 3 Clause 18 (Transactions that are not eligible transactions) Page 21, line 9, ‘in the pre-eligibility period’— omit, insert— ‘before 1 August 2011’. 4 Clause 35 (Contravention of consideration requirement on completion) Page 34, lines 23 to 25— omit, insert— ‘(3) The applicant for the grant is required within 28 days after completion of the relevant transaction to—’. 5 Clause 35 (Contravention of consideration requirement on completion) Page 34, line 29— omit, insert— ‘(4) The applicant must not contravene the requirement under subsection (3) unless the applicant has a reasonable excuse. Maximum penalty—40 penalty units.’. 6 Clause 35 (Contravention of consideration requirement on completion) Page 35, line 1, ‘(4)’— omit, insert— ‘(5)’. 7 Clause 36 (Contravention of occupancy requirement) Page 35, lines 10 and 11— omit, insert— ‘the applicant is required within 14 days after the relevant day to—’. 8 Clause 36 (Contravention of occupancy requirement) Page 35, line 15— omit, insert— ‘(3) The applicant must not contravene the requirement under subsection (2) unless the applicant has a reasonable excuse. Maximum penalty—40 penalty units.’. 9 Clause 36 (Contravention of occupancy requirement) Page 35, line 16, ‘(3)’— omit, insert— ‘(4)’. 10 Clause 36 (Contravention of occupancy requirement) Page 35, line 19, ‘(4)’— omit, insert— ‘(5)’. 11 Clause 38 (Repayment notice) Page 36, line 14, ‘35(3), 36(2) or 37(2)’— omit, insert— ‘35(3) or 36(2) or a repayment requirement’. 12 Clause 84 (Commissioner may impose penalty) Page 61, line 16, ‘35(3), 36(2) or 37(2)’— omit, insert— ‘35(3) or 36(2) or a repayment requirement’. 13 Clause 85 (Recovery of wrongly paid amounts) Page 62, line 19, ‘35(3), 36(2) or 37(2)’— omit, insert— ‘35(3) or 36(2) or a repayment requirement’. 27 Oct 2011 Building Boost Grant Bill 3537

14 Clause 93 (Court may order repayment etc.) Page 67, lines 29 and 30, from ‘the person’ to ‘36(2)’— omit, insert— ‘a court convicts the person of an offence against section 35(4), 36(3)’. 15 Clause 93 (Court may order repayment etc.) Page 68, line 3, ‘contravention’— omit, insert— ‘offence’. 16 Clause 110 (Liability to repay for contravention of consideration requirement) Page 76, line 18, ‘35(3)’— omit, insert— ‘35(4)’. 17 Clause 110 (Liability to repay for contravention of consideration requirement) Page 76, line 20— omit, insert— ‘(3) The applicant is required within 28 days after assent to—’. 18 Clause 110 (Liability to repay for contravention of consideration requirement) Page 76, line 24— omit, insert— ‘(4) The applicant must not contravene the requirement under subsection (3) unless the applicant has a reasonable excuse. Maximum penalty—40 penalty units.’. 19 Clause 110 (Liability to repay for contravention of consideration requirement) Page 76, line 25, ‘(4)’— omit, insert— ‘(5)’. 20 Clause 111 (Liability to repay for contravention of occupancy requirement) Page 77, line 10, ‘36(2)’— omit, insert— ‘36(3)’. 21 Clause 111 (Liability to repay for contravention of occupancy requirement) Page 77, line 12— omit, insert— ‘(3) The applicant is required within 28 days after assent to—’. 22 Clause 111 (Liability to repay for contravention of occupancy requirement) Page 77, line 15— omit, insert— ‘(4) The applicant must not contravene the requirement under subsection (3) unless the applicant has a reasonable excuse. Maximum penalty—40 penalty units.’. 23 Clause 111 (Liability to repay for contravention of occupancy requirement) Page 77, line 16, ‘(4)’— omit, insert— ‘(5)’. 24 Clause 112 (Liability to repay for contravention of repayment requirement) Page 78, line 2— omit, insert— ‘(3) The applicant is required within 28 days after assent to—’. 25 Clause 112 (Liability to repay for contravention of repayment requirement) Page 78, line 5— omit, insert— ‘(4) The applicant must not contravene the requirement under subsection (3) unless the applicant has a reasonable excuse. Maximum penalty—40 penalty units.’. 26 Clause 112 (Liability to repay for contravention of repayment requirement) Page 78, line 6, ‘(4)’— omit, insert— ‘(5)’. 3538 Adjournment 27 Oct 2011

27 Clause 113 (Requirement to correct false or misleading information) Page 78, lines 26 and 27— omit, insert— ‘(2) The person is required within 28 days after assent to give the commissioner—’. 28 Clause 113 (Requirement to correct false or misleading information) Page 79, line 2— omit, insert— ‘(3) The person must not contravene the requirement under subsection (2) unless the person has a reasonable excuse. Maximum penalty—40 penalty units.’. I table the explanatory notes to my amendments. Tabled paper: Building Boost Grant Bill, explanatory notes for Hon. Andrew Fraser’s amendments [5753]. Amendments agreed to. Clauses 1 to 135, as amended, agreed to. Schedules 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Third Reading Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Acting Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development and Trade) (4.52 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. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Acting Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development and Trade) (4.52 pm): I move— That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (4.52 pm): I move— That the House, at its rising, do adjourn until 9.30 am on Tuesday, 15 November 2011. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. AP FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (4.53 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Fraser Island, Fire Mr POWELL (Glass House—LNP) (4.53 pm): Earlier this month, a number of unsuspecting tourists on Fraser Island almost paid the ultimate price for the Bligh Labor government’s disastrous record on national park management when a so-called controlled burn got completely out of control. In the words of one appalled and irate tourist— On Sunday we went for a drive— from Kingfisher Bay— to Lake McKenzie and Central Station ... we left due to the smoke in the area ... and on returning to the resort we were hit by a wall of flames in front and from behind ... with no option I was able to drive through the fire for about 300 metres to get to clear ground. After surviving the fire, the group continued to meet other Kingfisher Bay visitors obliviously venturing towards the fire front. They also met rangers and were told, ‘It’s okay. It’s a controlled burn.’ That response was repeated by resort staff, but that was clearly not the case. At 7 pm Kingfisher Bay Resort was placed under lockdown with the fire front approaching, and the battle continued into the 27 Oct 2011 Adjournment 3539 evening to bring the fire back under control. The tourist has nothing but praise for the QFRS and the Rural Fire Service, but he has condemnation for those responsible for initiating and monitoring the fire. Again, in his words— This situation should NEVER have happened, where a fire was set by QPWS ... around a holiday period, a time with the most ... visitors on the Island. That fire was not managed properly, roads were not closed and no information was given to the tourists at Kingfisher Bay. Aside from the narrow escape from this disaster, the uncontrolled fire will have far-reaching ramifications. A number of guests of the resort vow never to return to Fraser Island because of their experience. But perhaps that is what this government wanted all along: yet another attempt to lock up our protected estates and throw away the key. Everyone accepts that fire plays an important part in the management of the natural environment in Queensland and that it ensures a level of safety for residents and tourists alike. The right kind of fire actually has nature conservation benefits and has long been used by Aboriginal people for such purposes, but there are some core principles that should apply especially in the case of high-traffic sites like Fraser Island. Controlled burns should occur during the cooler months of May, June and July. They should occur outside of the school holiday period. As the member for Hervey Bay said, ‘I’m amazed the government has decided to burn off on the island when fire bans are normally in place.’ In conclusion, the visitor I quoted earlier has written to the minister demanding answers—who is responsible, what disciplinary action will be taken, how are the QPWS processes going to be improved—so that this near disaster never happens again. Given his experience, Minister, the least he deserves is a response. Girl Guides Mrs SMITH (Burleigh—ALP) (4.56 pm): Most people know the history of the Boy Scout movement, which was formed by Lord Baden-Powell in 1909, but they are less familiar with Girl Guides. The year 2010 was the 100th anniversary of Guiding and was declared the Year of the Girl Guide. Today, Girl Guides is the world’s largest voluntary organisation for girls and young women. Girl Guides Australia today has 30,000 members and belongs to a worldwide Guiding family which extends to 145 countries, with a membership of more than 10 million. More than one million Australian women have been or are still Guides. I was also a Girl Guide, some 50 years ago, and now belong to the Trefoil Guild, an organisation that supports those involved in the Guiding movement. Last week I was devastated to hear that our local Palm Beach/Burleigh Guide hut had been broken into—not once but twice. While the first break-in caused minor damage, the perpetrator returned the following day and trashed the hall and its contents. Oil was poured over and through the stove and it was stuffed with newspaper and the controls turned on. Luckily, the electricity to the stove was turned off or a fire would have burned the whole hall down. Sheer mindless vandalism saw boxes of children’s treasures scattered around the hall, and most of them are beyond repair. Mrs Ruth Arthur, the Guides district leader, was heartbroken but determined to clean up the mess before the Brownies arrived for their meeting that evening. Ruth is devoted to Guiding. The hours she puts into the organisation could never be repaid and her Guides love her for it. When word got out, the community response was amazing. Volunteers came from far and wide to help. Donations were received from Twin Towns glazing to replace the broken window; Electralarm to install an alarm; Gold Coast District RSL clubs with a $5,000 donation; JB Hi-Fi with a mini sound system; and an anonymous cash donation of $950. Many other donations followed. I hope my donation will help replace the costumes that had been lovingly prepared for the Christmas pageant to be held in early December. I have been invited to join the Guides next week to talk about my time as a Girl Guide and to show off my badges earned when I was their age and that are now stored in my memories box. I thank Ruth and her Guide and Brownie leaders for their commitment to girls and young women and wish the movement another 100 happy years. On a more uplifting note, until recently I had never met a real princess, but last month I represented the Premier at a dinner on the Gold Coast with members of the Olave Baden-Powell Society at which Princess Benedikte of Denmark was the guest of honour. The OB-PS is an international philanthropic society established to support the work of the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts by providing core funding. Mystic Sands, Flying Foxes Mr CRIPPS (Hinchinbrook—LNP) (4.59 pm): During the last sitting of this parliament I spoke about the huge colony of flying foxes that had taken up residence in the backyards of residents at Mystic Sands near Balgal Beach in my electorate of Hinchinbrook. Today I lodged a petition on behalf of 284 constituents requesting that the Minister for Environment put the health and welfare of the local 3540 Adjournment 27 Oct 2011 community ahead of protecting what can no longer legitimately be called an endangered native animal. The petition calls on the minister to immediately issue a damage mitigation permit and make available the resources of the Department of Environment and Resource Management to deal with this totally unacceptable situation and move on the flying foxes to a more suitable location within the thousands of hectares of state forest and national park adjacent to this community. The petition seeks to draw to the attention of the House the severe health risk and the significant diminution of living amenity suffered by the residents at Mystic Sands due to the presence of this enormous colony of flying foxes. I wrote to the minister on 11 October 2011 on behalf of my constituents at Mystic Sands pleading with her to take action on this issue without delay. A full week after I had written to the minister requesting immediate action to move on the huge colony of flying foxes, the only response from DERM had been to distribute an awareness flyer into the mailboxes of local residents at Mystic Sands. The minister’s response to my representations received on Tuesday this week was bitterly disappointing, confirming what people in a number of communities across Queensland that have previously been inundated with these bats already know: the Bligh Labor government will abandon them when they need help to deal with the stench, the noise, the damage to their properties and the total loss of any quality of life in favour of the perceived rights of the bats. Last Friday afternoon most of the bats in the colony of flying foxes at Mystic Sands left after several weeks of intolerable disruption of the lives of local residents, particularly between Howitson Drive and Augusta Drive. However, we can never know when the bats will return and repeat their unwelcome intrusion or how long they will stay on that occasion. What I can say to my constituents at Mystic Sands is that an LNP government will not abandon them as the Bligh Labor government has done. An LNP government will work with councils and landowners affected by nuisance flying fox colonies to ensure the health and welfare of local communities is not adversely affected. An LNP government will overhaul the damage mitigation permit system to allow for the faster and more effective relocation of unwelcome flying fox colonies. An LNP government will issue DMPs for longer periods of time so that councils can act quickly should bat colonies return. The LNP is committed to listening to local communities in Queensland.

Breast Cancer Ms van LITSENBURG (Redcliffe—ALP) (5.02 pm): Wild applause greeted breast cancer survivors proudly parading a selection of lingerie and swimwear specifically designed for them by Amoena Mia at a lunch to raise money for the Moreton Region Breast Cancer Support Group. It was great to see women survivors of breast cancer, many who have had mastectomies, model these garments with confidence and enjoyment. This is one way the support for women survivors of breast cancer is improving so that they can live normal lives and feel good about the way they look. Last Monday was Pink Ribbon Day and October is Breast Cancer Month and a time to celebrate our progress in improving breast cancer survival rates but, more importantly, to highlight where we need to achieve better outcomes going forward. Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women and from 2000 to 2006 the five-year relative survival after diagnosis went from 73 per cent to 88 per cent. This is a great result and one the state government has encouraged through the work of the National Breast Cancer Foundation and other agencies. With breakthroughs in research, the number of fatalities has been further reduced, but now is not the time to rest on our laurels. The single biggest change since 2007 has been made through early detection. The state government has ensured that all women over 50 and those with a family history of breast cancer or a variety of other indicators have access to free mammograms biannually. Women whose cancer is contained in the breast at the time of diagnosis have a 90 per cent chance of survival now. Today we are wearing scarves to highlight CanTeen, the organisation that supports children living with cancer. Their needs are just as great. The Bligh government supports all initiatives and research that will increase the survival rates of those with breast cancer. In fact, over the past decade as part of the state Labor government’s drive to diversify our economy we have developed a strong research sector that has reaped the rewards of vaccines for cervical and testicular cancer. We look forward to similar success for breast cancer and other types of cancer. These successes in combating the scourge of breast cancer and other cancers are what the Bligh government is good at—achieving strong results in difficult situations. That is why we are committed to achieving our Toward Q2 goals to deliver a healthier, more cancer-free Queensland.

Bald Hills State School Ms DAVIS (Aspley—LNP) (5.05 pm): Last Friday I had the great pleasure of attending the Showcase Awards for Excellence in Schools with a great group of teachers and parents of Bald Hills State School. It was particularly special to be present when the school’s innovative Kick Start to Learning program was announced as the winner of the Excellence in the Early Phase of Learning 27 Oct 2011 Adjournment 3541 category. The program is very deserving of the award because the results speak for themselves. The school has seen improved academic performance in year 2, which continues to be a strength; improved phonological awareness of students in year 1; and overall scores higher than the state mean in the NAPLAN test in 2010. Kick Start to Learning is a multidimensional strategy employing a suite of programs targeted at early intervention in the prep year and years 1, 2 and 3. The focus is on the individual requirements of students, particularly those experiencing difficulties in literacy, numeracy and gross or fine motor skills. I will not name all of the programs as the list is quite exhaustive, but I will make mention of a couple of initiatives that typify the school’s approach to the early phases of learning. In term 3 last year Bald Hills State School participated in the SPARK reading program for the first time. This was organised and sponsored by the Australian Business and Community Network. Six employees of the Commonwealth Bank were paired with six year 3 students, mentoring them for eight reading lessons. The students were then presented with a certificate and a book in front of their peers. This is a delightful opportunity for young people to engage with new faces in the community, feel supported in their learning and grow in confidence as they realise improvements in their literary skills. Kick Start to Learning also incorporates a hands-on approach to environmental science, which is very pleasing given that Bald Hills is an area with beautiful natural spaces. The school forestry is used by classes for reading and writing activities, as well as its science studies, in order to encourage outdoor activity and appreciation of the natural environment. In 2009, 2010 and 2011 all prep students and their families were invited to attend a planting day in the forest to commemorate the start of their schooling. This wonderful and original concept highlights, amongst other things, the importance attached to parental involvement in the early learning phase. We are also seeing an increasing focus in Queensland schools on incorporating technology and new media into curriculums. In this way, students are encouraged to learn skills that will inform research practices later in their schooling. Our culture is technology driven, so it is important that these children are given moderate exposure from an early age. Bald Hills State School students have weekly sessions in the computer labs with access to the internet in a safe learning environment. Whilst technology oriented activities are not a central feature of the program, they do enhance the multifaceted approach to teaching and learning that characterises the Kick Start to Learning program. I commend Bald Hills State School on its richly deserved recognition at the showcase awards. The program has been meticulously devised by dedicated staff and there is a clear vision for its continued growth into the future. Teralba Park, Green Army Ms GRACE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (5.08 pm): On Wednesday, 19 October I had the pleasure of representing Minister Hinchliffe at the graduation of a Green Army flood recovery restoration project. This was a great project that saw eight Brisbane job seekers from the culturally and linguistically diverse community having helped restore a flood affected park in Mitchelton as part of Queensland’s Green Army. Teralba Park reserve was badly damaged by January’s floods, with high volumes of debris entangling native trees and plants. The park was rehabilitated through work undertaken by participants of the flood recovery 2011 project being held at Teralba Park in Mitchelton. Our Green Army workers did a fantastic job and they can feel a sense of real achievement knowing they helped restore this important recreational area. The Multicultural Community Centre received $133,600 as part of the federal and state government’s $83 million Queensland natural disasters job and skills package to deliver the 16- week Green Army work placement project to job seekers from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, and I believe it is money well spent. It is a great project that helps equip job seekers with the skills needed to secure meaningful work. The Multicultural Community Centre director, Jeannie Mok, and her husband, David Mok, did a fantastic job. They saw the work activities that were being undertaken firsthand. They included the removal and stacking of debris in and around the catchment riparian zone and the extensive replanting of existing and new shrubbery. As such, participants developed a variety of horticultural skills and gained valuable work experience through the project. Each graduate also completed a certificate I in horticulture and achieved their construction white card. Participants achieved a significant feat for the local community while greatly enhancing their own work employability. One participant has since gained employment as a result of the project. I believe that this project ticks all the boxes. It gives people without a job the opportunity to learn new skills, it gives them the ability to help areas that require restoration following the floods and it delivers real, good outcomes not only for them from a skills sense but also for the community, which benefits from the work that was undertaken. Although this project was auspiced under the careful hands of the Multicultural Community Centre established in my electorate, they were able to go into other electorates such as to Mitchelton and help out in a park that was devastated by the floods. I saw the 3542 Adjournment 27 Oct 2011 before-and-after photos. Their supervisors could not talk highly enough of the eight people who were involved in this work. They worked tirelessly throughout this 16-week project. I thought they did an absolutely commendable job. Interruption.

PRIVILEGE

Ethics Committee, Report Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—Ind) (5.11 pm): I rise on a matter of privilege suddenly arising. The tabling this morning of report No. 118 of the Ethics Committee is actually a breach of the sub judice rule in itself. I ask that it be withdrawn from parliamentary publication until after the criminal matter it refers to is dealt with by the courts. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! Write to the Speaker.

ADJOURNMENT Resumed. Rural Fire Service Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (5.11 pm): I rise to talk about the Rural Fire Brigades Association of Queensland and the work that they do in the state. Today I received a document from them entitled ‘Document of Importance’. It states that recently they have held some 30 public meetings—from the New South Wales border to Cooktown, from Mount Isa to Miles and in many places in between. It goes on to state that support for volunteers at those meetings seeking change was quite overwhelming, with the majority of meeting attendees choosing the third of three options, which calls for a return to a separate rural fire service in Queensland and a rural fires act and, of course, the appropriate funding and management. The reason this organisation is raising this matter at this particular time is to allow all political parties the opportunity to draft policies that provide the appropriate financial and managerial support necessary to enable rural fire volunteers to carry out the role of managing and providing assistance at emergencies throughout 93 per cent of Queensland. Attached to this document were a number of graphs which I found very interesting. The first page contains a chart that compares what rural fire services in other states receive with what the Queensland Rural Fire Service receives. I am pretty sure that all members will receive a copy of this document. I think they will be quite surprised at the amount of funding other services receive. Queensland does not offer fully funded or fully maintained fire appliances or a lot of other things; the other states do. New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia do receive total recurrent funding; however, the Queensland Rural Fire Service does not. It gets none at all, according to this document. The document goes on to outline a whole lot of issues. It was said at the meetings that support for option 3, which was for the re-establishment of a separate rural fire service, was 91.84 per cent. That is quite a substantial level of support which would, I reflect, show that the people in the Rural Fire Service are not content with the way things are going. As they also state in this document, the Rural Fire Service receives eight per cent of the budget and they cover 93 per cent of Queensland, whereas 92 per cent of the budget goes to the urban fire service, which covers a very small area. The figures are quite astonishing. I think honourable members should study them. (Time expired) Education Reform Mr MOORHEAD (Waterford—ALP) (5.14 pm): The Bligh government has a strong record of reforming the education system here in Queensland. In recent years we have seen the introduction of a prep year, which has been highly successful across the state and, I must say, highly popular, with enrolments reaching just shy of 100 per cent. We have seen recent announcements about the move of year 7 into high school. More importantly, at the moment we are seeing a real focus on early years education with the rollout of 240 new kindergartens across Queensland. While these reforms at the state level are really important and are a commitment to a stronger education system, often it is the local innovations that can make a big difference in the life of a child. On Friday, 21 October I was privileged to join the Beenleigh State School at the Showcase Awards for Excellence in Schools, at which they were nominated for their Beenleigh Great Futures program. 27 Oct 2011 Adjournment 3543

The Beenleigh Great Futures program is an innovative program that ensures that, regardless of their socioeconomic status, children can enjoy the opportunities that our education system can provide. I want to congratulate the team behind it—Roger Smith, Sam Kirkwright and Vicky Brown—and commend the leadership of principal Jan Silcock. The Beenleigh Great Futures program has brought together local donors and corporate partners to provide programs in the school to ensure the daily needs of students are met so that they can get on and focus on their education. We have received a very generous donation of $25,000 from the National Australia Bank, donations from shoe companies and podiatrists as well as food provided to children. In this way the school can ensure that any child who comes to school is in a position where they are ready to learn and get on with the classes provided. The Beenleigh State School provides a strong, inclusive school community. It is one that ensures no child is left behind. Unfortunately, the Beenleigh Great Futures program was not the winner on the night, but I think they were delighted—as am I—to see their program nominated. It is these innovative programs that ensure every child in our community is provided with the chance to come to school, focus on what they are being taught and gain those skills that will give them not only a strong career but also a strong life and an opportunity to participate in all those things that our great country has to offer.

Urangan Boat Harbour Mr SORENSEN (Hervey Bay—LNP) (5.17 pm): I wish to discuss the $800 million ‘shelved’ expansion project of the Urangan boat harbour in Hervey Bay. On Wednesday morning the chamber of commerce held a forum on the Urangan harbour and what direction the community should take following the shelving of this expansion project. This is an essential project for the Hervey Bay area. Surely, this is not just a decision that this Labor government can make and then walk away from. The expansion of the marina itself is desperately needed. We also need to talk about the high lease rents paid by businesses at the marina. I have addressed all of these issues time and time again with various ministers. The problem is: which minister is responsible for the boat harbour itself? In 2010, following direction from the Minister for Natural Resources in answer to a question on notice, I asked the Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Rural and Regional Queensland, Tim Mulherin, about the starting date for the harbour expansion. His office referred me to the Minister for Transport. Nonetheless, it was Minister Tim Mulherin who announced in October last year that the planned harbour redevelopment had been put aside. This year the Minister for Main Roads, Fisheries and Marine Infrastructure, Craig Wallace, announced that the tender process was in the final stages for the construction of a new pontoon at the Urangan harbour. Following this, I asked the minister a question on notice as he seemed to know what was happening. I asked when the government would reconsider the development and what the state government’s contribution would be. The answer baffles me. ‘This falls outside my portfolio,’ he replied. He could not even tell me who did know. The harbour involves a spider web of leases, subleases and the like on a patchwork of titles. I understand that some lease holders pay around six per cent of the valuation in rent. The Hervey Bay Boat Club pays up to nine per cent of the valuation. That is a big part of it. It is a community club and the rent went up 163 per cent one year. That is a massive $334,000 in one year. This year, with valuations going down, one would think the rents would come down. They are certainly not going to come down. The rents will stay at the previous record high. The boat club is pretty upset, and I wish somebody could look into this issue. It is not fair that valuations drop and rents do not drop with them.

Beenleigh-Beaudesert and Tallagandra Roads, Upgrade Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (5.20 pm): I rise to update members about roadworks on the very busy Beenleigh-Beaudesert Road in the electorate of Albert. Members will recall that some time ago I presented to the parliament a very large petition of more than 1,100 signatures calling on the government and the Department of Main Roads to upgrade the intersection of Beenleigh-Beaudesert Road. I also called for the government to fast-track the improvements on this road. I know that members will be very keen to know what has happened since that petition was lodged. I am very pleased to inform the House that recently the Minister for Main Roads, Craig Wallace, joined me to inspect the recent developments at the site. Work is currently well underway, with the relocation of a water main and Telstra services already completed. Roadworks are on schedule. They are very busy on site with bulk earthworks and have almost completed drainage which will be followed by electrical and early pavement works. When completed residents and commuters will benefit with new signals at the busy intersection, the duplication of turning lanes from Tallagandra Road to Beenleigh-Beaudesert Road, a shared pedestrian and cycle path, as well as a dedicated right-turn lane into Tallagandra Road. The project is expected to be completed in early May 2012, weather permitting. In particular I want to thank the residents and the motorists who are showing great patience during these roadworks. It is rather inconvenient because they are having to slow down to 40 kilometres. In the end it will certainly be worth the while. 3544 Attendance 27 Oct 2011

The intersection works form part of a $23 million package of upgrades to Beenleigh-Beaudesert Road, which is a strategic route for my local community and a vital connection between Beenleigh and Beaudesert. The member for Waterford has worked hard in supporting me in getting these upgrades. The Minister for Main Roads brought with him even more good news, and that is that there will be further works happening on the road with traffic signals at a new four-way intersection of Belivah, Bannockburn and Beenleigh-Beaudesert roads and the lowering of a crest near Lee Court on Beenleigh-Beaudesert Road which at this stage is quite high and impedes visibility. I thank the minister, I thank Main Roads and RoadTek for the good work that they are doing and also I thank Albert and Logan News which has supported me in my petition. Question put—That the House do now adjourn. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 5.23 pm.

ATTENDANCE Attwood, Bates, Bleijie, Boyle, Choi, Crandon, Cripps, Croft, Cunningham, Darling, Davis, Dempsey, Dick, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Farmer, Finn, Flegg, Foley, Fraser, Gibson, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hobbs, Hoolihan, Hopper, Jarratt, Johnstone, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Kilburn, Knuth, Langbroek, Lawlor, Lucas, McArdle, McLindon, Male, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nicholls, Nolan, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Powell, Pratt, Reeves, Rickuss, Roberts, Robertson, Robinson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Seeney, Shine, Simpson, Smith, Sorensen, Spence, Springborg, Stevens, Struthers, Stuckey, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson

GOVERNMENT PRINTER, QUEENSLAND—2011