PROOF ISSN 1322-0330
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Hansard Home Page: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/work-of-assembly/hansard E-mail: [email protected] Phone (07) 3406 7314 Fax (07) 3210 0182
FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT
Tuesday, 19 November 2013
Subject Page PRESENTATION OF APPROPRIATION BILL ...... 3865 ASSENT TO BILLS ...... 3865 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 7 November 2013, from Her Excellency the Governor to the Speaker advising of assent to certain bills...... 3865 SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS ...... 3866 Auditor-General’s Reports ...... 3866 Tabled paper: Auditor-General of Queensland: Report to Parliament No. 5 : 2013-14—Traffic management systems...... 3866 Tabled paper: Auditor-General of Queensland: Report to Parliament No. 6 : 2013-14—Results of audit: internal control systems...... 3866 Parliamentary Christmas Tree ...... 3866 ABSENCE OF MEMBER ...... 3866 SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 3866 Procedural Matters ...... 3866 PETITIONS ...... 3869 NUTTALL, MR GR ...... 3869 TABLED PAPERS...... 3869 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 3873 Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services ...... 3873 Tabled paper: Extraordinary Queensland Government Gazette of Friday, 1 November 2013...... 3873 Report, Members’ Daily Travelling Allowance Claims ...... 3873 Tabled paper: Daily Travelling Allowance Claims by the Members of the Legislative Assembly— Annual Report 2012-13...... 3873 Underground Bus and Train Project ...... 3873 State Assessment and Referral Agency; Fitzgibbon Chase ...... 3874 State Finances ...... 3874
FS SIMPSON NJ LAURIE LJ OSMOND SPEAKER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER
Table of Contents – Tuesday, 19 November 2013
Queensland Health, Industrial Arrangements ...... 3875 Gill, Ms D ...... 3876 Schoolies Week, Queensland Police Service ...... 3877 ETHICS COMMITTEE...... 3877 Report ...... 3877 Tabled paper: Ethics Committee: Report No. 139—Matter of privilege referred by the registrar on 19 March 2013 relating to an alleged failure of a member to register interests in the Register of Members’ Interest and Register of Related Persons’ Interest and matter of privilege referred by the Speaker on 4 June 2013 relating to an alleged deliberate misleading of the House by a member...... 3877 LEGAL AFFAIRS AND COMMUNITY SAFETY COMMITTEE ...... 3878 Office of the Information Commissioner, Reports ...... 3878 Tabled paper: Office of the Information Commissioner: Report No. 3 for 2013-14—Follow-up review recommendations (Queensland Health and Queensland Police Service): Review of agency adoption of recommendations made under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) and the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld)...... 3878 Tabled paper: Office of the Information Commissioner: Report No. 4 for 2013-14—Compliance review, Department of Education, Training and Employment: Review of Department of Education, Training and Employment compliance with the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) and the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld)...... 3878 NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 3879 Infrastructure Projects ...... 3879 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 3879 Crime and Misconduct Commission, Chair ...... 3879 Education Funding ...... 3879 Workers Compensation ...... 3880 Tabled paper: Copy of member for South Brisbane’s Register of Interests...... 3881 Tabled paper: Printout of web page of MVM Legal, page id 44...... 3881 State Schools, Closures ...... 3881 Workers Compensation ...... 3882 Speaker’s Ruling, Question Out of Order ...... 3882 Sale of Public Assets ...... 3882 Speaker’s Ruling, Question Out of Order ...... 3882 Resources Industry ...... 3882 Public Service, Jobs ...... 3883 Workers Compensation ...... 3883 Tabled paper: Printout of web page of MVM Legal...... 3884 Tabled paper: Printout of two web pages of MVM Legal, page id 328...... 3884 Anti-Association Laws ...... 3884 Speaker’s Ruling, Question Out of Order ...... 3884 Electricity Prices ...... 3885 Sale of Public Assets ...... 3885 Speaker’s Ruling, Question Out of Order ...... 3885 Outback Queensland, Tourism ...... 3885 Sale of Public Assets ...... 3886 Sale of Public Assets ...... 3887 Speaker’s Ruling, Question Out of Order ...... 3887 Political Donations ...... 3887 Mapoon ...... 3888 Walton Construction, Collapse ...... 3888 Education and Training, School Leavers ...... 3889 Public Service, Jobs ...... 3890 North Queensland, Waterways ...... 3890 SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 3891 School Group Tours ...... 3891 MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST ...... 3891 Darra-Springfield Railway Line; Newman Government, Performance ...... 3891 Ipswich Electorate, Education ...... 3893 Springwood Electorate, Education ...... 3893 Vines Creek Bridges ...... 3894 War in Afghanistan ...... 3895 Newman Government, Performance ...... 3896 Take My Seat Campaign ...... 3897 Gladstone Electorate, Local Service Providers ...... 3898 Moggill Electorate, Public Transport ...... 3899 Gold Coast City Council, Development Approval ...... 3900 Tabled paper: Supreme Court of Queensland judgement in Gold Coast Commerce Club Inc & Anor v Body Corporate for Surfers Plaza Resort Community Titles Scheme 6388 [2008] QSC ...... 3900 Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Surfers Paradise Local Area Plan—LAP Map 25.3—Maximum Building Heights’...... 3900 Mental Health ...... 3901 Oral Health ...... 3902 PUBLIC SERVICE AND OTHER LEGISLATION (CIVIL LIABILITY) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3903 Introduction ...... 3903 Table of Contents – Tuesday, 19 November 2013
Tabled paper: Public Service and Other Legislation (Civil Liability) Amendment Bill 2013...... 3903 Tabled paper: Public Service and Other Legislation (Civil Liability) Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes...... 3903 First Reading ...... 3904 Referral to the Finance and Administration Committee ...... 3904 PENALTIES AND SENTENCES (INDEXATION) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3904 Introduction ...... 3904 Tabled paper: Penalties and Sentences (Indexation) Amendment Bill 2013...... 3904 Tabled paper: Penalties and Sentences (Indexation) Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes...... 3904 First Reading ...... 3905 Referral to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee ...... 3905 AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3905 Introduction ...... 3905 Tabled paper: Agricultural College Amendment Bill 2013...... 3905 Tabled paper: Agricultural College Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes...... 3905 First Reading ...... 3906 Referral to the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee ...... 3906 BIOSECURITY BILL ...... 3907 Message from Governor ...... 3907 Tabled paper: Message, dated 19 November 2013, from Her Excellency the Governor, recommending the Biosecurity Bill 2013...... 3907 Introduction ...... 3907 Tabled paper: Biosecurity Bill 2013 ...... 3907 Tabled paper: Biosecurity Bill 2013, explanatory notes...... 3907 First Reading ...... 3910 Referral to the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee ...... 3910 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (FAIR WORK ACT HARMONISATION NO. 2) AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3910 Second Reading ...... 3910 Tabled paper: Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 45—Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, government response...... 3911 ELECTORAL DISTRICT OF REDCLIFFE ...... 3944 Resignation of Member ...... 3944 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 19 November 2013, from Mr Scott Driscoll MP, member for Redcliffe, to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Hon. Fiona Simpson MP, regarding his resignation from parliament...... 3944 MOTION ...... 3944 Infrastructure Projects ...... 3944 Tabled paper: Online news article from the Brisbane Times, dated 19 November 2013, titled ‘Bus and rail tunnel all show and no substance: transport expert’...... 3945 Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to...... 3955 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3955 Division: Question put—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to...... 3955 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3955 Motion, as agreed— ...... 3956 MOTION ...... 3956 Driscoll, Mr SN, Order to Attend the Bar of the House ...... 3956 COMMITTEE OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ...... 3958 Portfolio Committees, Reporting Dates ...... 3958 Auditor-General’s Reports, Referral to Portfolio Committees ...... 3958 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (FAIR WORK ACT HARMONISATION NO. 2) AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3958 Second Reading ...... 3958 Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time...... 3975 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3975 Consideration in Detail ...... 3975 Clause 1— ...... 3975 Division: Question put—That clause 1, as read, stand part of the bill...... 3975 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3975 Clause 1, as read, agreed to...... 3975 Clause 2, as read, agreed to...... 3975 Clause 3— ...... 3975 Division: Question put—That clause 3, as read, stand part of the bill...... 3975 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3975 Clause 3, as read, agreed to...... 3975 Clauses 4 to 6, as read, agreed to...... 3975 Clause 7— ...... 3975 Tabled paper: Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes to Hon. Jarrod Bleijie’s amendments...... 3977 Division: Question put—That clause 7, as amended, be agreed to...... 3977 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3977 Clause 7, as amended, agreed to...... 3977
Table of Contents – Tuesday, 19 November 2013
Clauses 8 to 25— ...... 3977 Clauses 8 to 25, as amended, agreed to...... 3978 Clause 26— ...... 3978 Division: Question put—That clause 26, as read, stand part of the bill...... 3978 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3978 Clause 26, as read, agreed to...... 3978 Clauses 27 to 41— ...... 3978 Clauses 27 to 41, as amended, agreed to...... 3978 Clause 42— ...... 3978 Division: Question put—That clause 42, as amended, be agreed to...... 3980 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3980 Clause 42, as amended, agreed to...... 3980 Clauses 43 to 52, as read, agreed to...... 3980 Clause 53— ...... 3980 Division: Question put—That clause 53, as read, stand part of the bill...... 3980 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3980 Clause 53, as read, agreed to...... 3980 Clauses 54 to 74— ...... 3981 Clauses 54 to 74, as amended, agreed to...... 3982 Clause 75— ...... 3982 Tabled paper: Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes to Ms Annastacia Palaszczuk’s amendments...... 3982 Division: Question put—That the amendments be agreed to...... 3983 Resolved in the negative...... 3983 Non-government amendments (Ms Palaszczuk) negatived...... 3983 Division: Question put—That clause 75, as amended, be agreed to...... 3984 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3984 Clause 75, as amended, agreed to...... 3984 Clauses 76 to 136— ...... 3984 Clauses 76 to 136, as amended, agreed to...... 3986 Schedule— ...... 3986 Schedule, as amended, agreed to...... 3986 Third Reading ...... 3987 Long Title ...... 3987 CRIMINAL LAW (CRIMINAL ORGANISATIONS DISRUPTION) AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3987 Introduction ...... 3987 Tabled paper: Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013...... 3987 Tabled paper: Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes...... 3987 First Reading ...... 3989 Referral to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee ...... 3989 Portfolio Committee, Reporting Date ...... 3989 Division: Question put—That the Attorney’s mobile device be tabled...... 3991 Resolved in the negative...... 3991 Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to...... 3994 Resolved in the affirmative...... 3994 MOTION ...... 3994 Driscoll, Mr SN, Order to Attend the Bar of the House ...... 3994 ADJOURNMENT ...... 3994 Fitzroy River, Crocodile Sightings ...... 3994 Mount Ommaney Electorate ...... 3995 Tabled paper: Email, dated 19 November 2013, to Tarnya Smith from Steve Smith, forwarding two emails, dated 9 November 2013, from Viet Tran, regarding $4.3 million funding for the Centenary of Anzac Day, and a letter to the editor of the Australian from Viet Tran...... 3995 Morayfield Electorate, Bike Bus; Morayfield East State School ...... 3995 Arts Funding ...... 3996 Ipswich West Electorate, Schools ...... 3996 Maryborough CBD ...... 3997 Food Allergies ...... 3998 Algester Electorate, Events ...... 3998 Steinhardt, Mrs H; Easton, Mrs E; Nerang PCYC ...... 3999 Capricornia Training Co...... 3999 ATTENDANCE ...... 4000
19 Nov 2013 Legislative Assembly 3865
TUESDAY, 19 NOVEMBER 2013 ______
The Legislative Assembly met at 9.30 am. Madam Speaker (Hon. Fiona Simpson, Maroochydore) read prayers and took the chair. For the sitting week, Madam Speaker acknowledged the traditional custodians of the land upon which this parliament is assembled. PRESENTATION OF APPROPRIATION BILL Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have to report that on Thursday, 7 November 2013 I presented to Her Excellency the Governor the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) for royal assent and that Her Excellency was pleased, in my presence, to subscribe her assent thereto in the name and on behalf of Her Majesty. ASSENT TO BILLS Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have to report that I have received from Her Excellency the Governor a letter in respect of assent to certain bills, the contents of which will be incorporated in the Record of Proceedings. I table the letter for the information of members. The Honourable F. Simpson MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Parliament House George Street BRISBANE QLD 4000
I hereby acquaint the Legislative Assembly that the following Bills, having been passed by the Legislative Assembly and having been presented for the Royal Assent, were assented to in the name of Her Majesty The Queen on the date shown:
Date of assent: 7 November 2013 “A Bill for An Act authorising the Treasurer to pay an amount from the consolidated fund for Queensland Treasury and Trade for the financial year starting 1 July 2012” “A Bill for An Act to amend the Aboriginal Land Act 1991, the Civil Liability Act 2003, the Environmental Protection Act 1994, the Forestry Act 1959, the Fossicking Act 1994, the Geothermal Energy Act 2010, the Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2009, the Land Act 1994, the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002, the Marine Parks Act 2004, the Mineral Resources Act 1989, the Nature Conservation Act 1992, the Petroleum Act 1923, the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004, the Recreation Areas Management Act 2006, the Survey and Mapping Infrastructure Act 2003, the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and the Vegetation Management Act 1999 for particular purposes, and to make consequential or minor amendments to the Acts as stated in schedule 1 for purposes related to those particular purposes” “A Bill for An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008, the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 and the Guide, Hearing and Assistance Dogs Act 2009 for particular purposes” “A Bill for An Act to provide for the safety and security of persons attending the Group of Twenty leaders’ summit in Brisbane in 2014 and other related meetings and events in Queensland in 2014, to ensure the safety of members of the community and to protect property during the hosting of the summit and other related meetings and to amend the Criminal Code, the Holidays Act 1983, the Industrial Relations Act 1999, the Right to Information Act 2009 and the Trading (Allowable Hours) Act 1990 for particular purposes” “A Bill for An Act to amend the Health Legislation Amendment Act 2011, the Hospital and Health Boards Act 2011, the Public Health Act 2005, the Queensland Institute of Medical Research Act 1945, the Queensland Mental Health Commission Act 2013 and the Transplantation and Anatomy Act 1979 for particular purposes” “A Bill for An Act to amend the Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 for particular purposes” “A Bill for An Act to amend the City of Brisbane Act 2010, the Local Government Act 2009, the Local Government and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2012 and the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 for particular purposes, and to make consequential or minor amendments of other legislation as stated in schedule 1 for purposes related to those purposes”
These Bills are hereby transmitted to the Legislative Assembly, to be numbered and forwarded to the proper Officer for enrolment, in the manner required by law. Yours sincerely Governor
7 November 2013 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 7 November 2013, from Her Excellency the Governor to the Speaker advising of assent to certain bills [4009].
3866 Speaker’s Statement 19 Nov 2013
SPEAKER’S STATEMENTS
Auditor-General’s Reports Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have to report that I have received from the Acting Auditor-General report No. 5 for 2013-14 titled Traffic management systems and report No. 6 for 2013-14 titled Results of audit: internal control systems. I table the reports for the information of members. Tabled paper: Auditor-General of Queensland: Report to Parliament No. 5 : 2013-14—Traffic management systems [4010]. Tabled paper: Auditor-General of Queensland: Report to Parliament No. 6 : 2013-14—Results of audit: internal control systems [4011].
Parliamentary Christmas Tree Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I am pleased to inform members that the annual lighting of the parliament’s Christmas tree will occur this evening. It will be accompanied by carols from Harris Fields State School. I acknowledge the assistance of the member for Woodridge in organising the choir’s attendance. I invite members to share in this short event at 7 pm on the porte-cochere. There will be a carols performance from the students, followed by the lighting of the tree and concluding at 7.15 pm in time for the House to resume.
ABSENCE OF MEMBER Madam SPEAKER: I have received a letter, with supporting documentation, from the member for Cairns advising of his absence from the House from today until and including Thursday, 21 November 2013. The member’s notification complies with standing order 263A.
SPEAKER’S STATEMENT
Procedural Matters Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, since the commencement of the 54th Parliament I have made a number of rulings and statements in the House in relation to procedural matters. As this parliamentary year is drawing to a close, I believe it is timely to remind all members of these. I have therefore circulated a statement in the chamber to members, for incorporation in the parliamentary record, reinforcing the basic but important rules of the House. In doing so, I reiterate my statements on procedural issues on 5 and 20 June 2012, 13 February, 18 and 30 April, 2 May, 7 June and, most recently, 29 October 2013. Is leave granted to incorporate the statement? Leave granted.
Basic, important rules of the House.
Reflections on the Chair It is a long recognised principle of parliamentary privilege that the character or actions of the Chair, that is the Speaker, Deputy Speaker and Acting Speakers, may not be criticised by any member except on a substantive motion. The principle is based on respect for the institution of Parliament, the chair being the embodiment of the power, authority and integrity of the Parliament.
Further, Standing Order 266(23) provides that commenting or reflecting on the decisions or actions of the Chair, whether relating to actions inside the House or the character of the Chair in general, constitutes a contempt.
Personal reflections on Members Personal reflections on members, imputations of improper motives and unbecoming or offensive words in reference to another member are highly disorderly and offend the Standing Orders.
The House is a place for vigorous debate and scrutiny but Members should not be overly sensitive.
Which brings me to the issue of withdrawals.
A member has a right to require the withdrawal of such personal reflections. Generally, if the affected member believes a statement is a personal reflection and objects to the words used, then the Chair will require withdrawal and not make an objective assessment. Members asked to withdraw by the Chair must do so in an unqualified and unreserved way.
An apology or retraction does not satisfy Standing Order 235 if it is phrased in a manner that indicates that the member does not regret their statement or they do not accept that the words were offensive, unparliamentary or disorderly.
19 Nov 2013 Speaker’s Statement 3867
Referring to members by their correct title A member should always address their remarks through the Chair (SO247) and refer to other members by their correct title, either their ministerial or parliamentary office or their electorate. (SO244)
The purpose of these standing orders is to make debate less personal and more civilised and avoid the direct confrontation of members addressing one another as “you”. When a second-person personal pronoun, such as “you”, is used it is indicating that the member is not addressing the House through the Speaker.
Interjections Standing order 251 provides the general rule that when a member is speaking no other member may converse, make noise or disturbance so as to interrupt the member speaking.
As I have already said, the House is a place for vigorous debate and the Chair may not always intervene in the normal course of debate when interjections are made unless the interjections are frequent and interrupt the flow of a member’s speech. Members who indulge in persistent and disruptive interjections are considered disorderly.
Points of order Members sometime seek to use points of order inappropriately to either interrupt other members or interrupt the order of business generally.
A point of order is essentially a question as to whether the present proceedings are in order or allowed by the rules of the House or parliamentary practice and procedure generally.
An attempt to allegedly correct the record, or allege that another member is misleading the House, or put the member’s own position on a matter, or introduce another topic or material, is not a point of order.
A member’s point of view is not a point of order and is merely disorderly.
Persistent, deliberately disruptive or frivolous points of order, being disorderly, may result in a member being warned under standing orders 252-254.
Matters of privilege suddenly arising Similarly, members sometime seek to raise matters of privilege inappropriately to either interrupt other members or interrupt the order of business generally.
A genuine matter of privilege, suddenly arising, may be raised by a member at any time under standing order 248. To satisfy the requirements of standing order 248, a matter must firstly be a matter of privilege and secondly, it must be a matter that has suddenly arisen and requires immediate redress.
The reality is that few matters fall within the definition of a matter of privilege suddenly arising.
Matters that may fall into that category include: members being unable or prevented from entering the chamber, strangers being present in the House and interrupting proceedings, required material not being available for proceedings before the House.
Unfortunately, as with points of order, some members attempt to use matters of privilege to allegedly correct the record, or allege that another member is misleading the House, or put the member’s own position on a matter, or introduce another topic or material.
These matters are not matters of privilege suddenly arising and are simply yet another example of abuse of the standing orders.
I will not allow members to simply rise and allege a deliberate misleading of the House during the course of business.
Persistent, deliberately disruptive or frivolous matters of privilege, being disorderly, may result in a member being warned under standing orders 252-254.
Allegations of deliberately misleading the House If any member believes another member has deliberately misled the House, then the appropriate procedure is contained in standing order 269. The member should write to the Speaker with all evidence available supporting the allegation.
However, I remind members that contempt of parliament is a very serious allegation that requires evidence.
Correcting the record Ethics committees have made a number of statements over the years about the importance of Members correcting their own errors at the earliest opportunity.
A member who has the courage to recognise that they have done something wrong, whether deliberately or not, and takes appropriate action is to be strongly commended and supported.
I will allow members to rise at an appropriate point in proceedings to correct incorrect or misleading statements that they themselves have made in proceedings.
Members in making their correction should say, at the beginning of their speech, “I wish to advise the House that I have (insert time) made an incorrect statement and I wish to correct the record” or words to that effect.
As I have suggested on previous occasions, members should attempt to confer with the Chair for an appropriate time.
3868 Speaker’s Statement 19 Nov 2013
Personal explanations There is time in the Order of Business each day for personal explanations.
A personal explanation is just that, an opportunity for a member to explain their position on a matter raised about them, whether it be in the House or outside, such as in the media. It should also be used by a member to correct some misrepresentation of their words or actions.
However, it is not an opportunity for a member to attack another member or continue to debate their particular side of a matter.
Language Members need also to remember that standing orders and practice and procedure also prevent unparliamentary language.
Unparliamentary language is difficult to define and no exhaustive list of expressions can be provided. Largely, what is unparliamentary by necessity lays in the realm of who is in the Chair; but generally it is any language or expression that is unworthy of the dignity of the House or Parliament as an institution.
What may be acceptable language in some places outside Parliament, indeed may even be common usage in some places or forums, does not necessarily mean it is acceptable in this forum. In the words of Speaker Mickel, the behaviour of one member in the House reflects on all members. I remind all Members that our conduct in this House is under public scrutiny and that statements made are recorded for history. It is the responsibility of all members to uphold the dignity of the House in the language and statements they use.
Members asked to withdraw unparliamentary words or comments must do so in an unreserved and unqualified way. (SO235)
Disorderly conduct during divisions A division—either when the bells are being rung or after the bars have been closed for counting—forms part of the proceedings of the Parliament and standing orders apply.
It is vital that the Chair clearly be able to hear what is transpiring in the chamber—at all times, including during divisions.
Members can and will be warned or named during divisions when their behaviour warrants it.
The removal of the member from the chamber who has behaved in a disorderly way and been warned or named under standing orders is executed after the division and tally has been completed.
Members need to rise and call Whilst the Whips oftentimes produce speaking lists, it is emphasised that they are guides only. Standing order 247 provides that members wishing to speak shall rise and address the Speaker. If more than one member rises, the Speaker shall call upon the member who, in the Speaker’s opinion rose first.
If members do not rise and address the Speaker, the Speaker is entitled to call any member who has risen and if no member has risen to call on the next item of business or the member in charge of the matter under consideration to close the debate as the case may be.
Absence or state of member I have previously indicated that I will enforce the long standing rule about not allowing reference to the absence of a Member during debate.
I also note that it is a long standing rule that the state of a Member should not be commented upon.
The Rules for Questions I urge all Members to refer to Standing orders 113 and 115 that provide the general rules for questions.
Questions may only be asked of ministers if the question relates to public affairs with which the minister is officially connected or to any matter of administration for which the minister is responsible or proceedings pending in the Legislative Assembly for which the minister is responsible (but discussion must not be anticipated).
Questions shall be brief and relate to one issue. Questions shall not contain: lengthy or subjective preambles; arguments; inferences; imputations; hypothetical matters; or names of persons, unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible and can be authenticated.
Importantly, questions shall not ask for: an expression of opinion; a legal opinion; or an answer that would contravene the rules relating to matters sub judice.
I have previously informed the House on how I will draw the line between a Member asking for an opinion and asking for a position on a matter. If a member asks a minister for their view on an issue—then they are asking the minister for an opinion.
Essentially, phrasing is very important.
If a member asks whether the minister (or the government) supports a position then the member is asking for a government policy position and the question is in order.
On one level I appreciate it appears technical to draw a distinction between a “view” and a “position” but this distinction is the very rationale behind including “opinions” in the list of things that members cannot ask for in standing order 115 (i.e. the principle being in Question Time ministers should be asked about the government’s policy position not their personal view).
19 Nov 2013 Tabled Papers 3869
PETITIONS The Clerk presented the following paper petitions, lodged by the honourable members indicated—
Anzac Avenue, Renaming
Mr Ruthenberg, from 22 petitioners, requesting the House to rename Anzac Avenue, which runs from Petrie to Redcliffe, back to the original name of Anzac Memorial Avenue [4012].
Mungar-Gladstone, Railway Line
Hon. Seeney, from 757 petitioners, requesting the House to transfer to a community trust the rail corridor and existing rail infrastructure relative to the Mungar to Gladstone (inland route) rail line [4013].
The Clerk presented the following e-petitions, sponsored by the honourable members indicated—
Community visitors Program
Ms Barton, from 12 petitioners, requesting the House to ensure the integrity of Queensland’s Restrictive Practices regime ‘safeguards and protections’, by removing conflicting authorities and practices of the Office of the Adult Guardian over the Community Visitors Program [4014].
State Schools, Closures
Ms Palaszczuk, from 820 petitioners, requesting the House to stay the closure of the Charlton, Fortitude Valley, Old Yarranlea, Stuart and Toowoomba South State Schools and the Nyanda State High School for at least 12 months [4015].
The Clerk presented the following e-petition, sponsored by the Clerk in accordance with Standing Order 119(4)—
Tennyson, King Arthur Terrace 54 petitioners, requesting the House as the level of Government with primary responsibility for planning to take the lead role in co-ordinating the road safety aspects of planning and implementation process to King Arthur Terrace, Tennyson [4016].
Petitions received.
NUTTALL, MR GR The CLERK: Honourable members, I advise that on 12 May 2011 the Legislative Assembly of the 53rd Parliament found Mr Gordon Nuttall guilty of 41 instances of contempt and ordered that Mr Nuttall be fined $2,000 on each count—a total of $82,000. In accordance with the recommendations of the Ethics Committee I advise that I have received from the Public Trustee, acting on behalf of Mr Nuttall, a further sum of $50,440, being full and final payment from the proceeds of Mr Nuttall’s assets.
TABLED PAPERS PAPERS TABLED DURING THE RECESS
The Clerk informed the House that the following papers, received during the recess, were tabled on the dates indicated––
1 November 2013— 3958 Overseas Travel Report: Report on an overseas visit by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Dr McVeigh) to Thailand and China (including Hong Kong), 22 to 28 September 2013 3959 Administration of the Foreign Ownership of Land Register Act 1988—Annual Report 2012-13 3960 Education and Care Services Ombudsman, National Education and Care Services FOI and Privacy Commissioners— Annual Report—2012-13 3961 Health and Community Services Committee: Report No. 34—Annual Report 2012-13 3962 Health and Community Services Committee: Report No. 35—Auditor-General’s Report to Parliament No. 6 for 2012- 13—Implementing the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness in Queensland 3963 Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee: Report No. 36—Annual Report 2012-13 3964 Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee: Report No. 37—Subordinate legislation tabled between 7 August 2013 and 10 September 2013 3965 Queensland Liquor and Gaming Commission—Annual Report 2012-13
4 November 2013— 3966 Director of Mental Health—Annual Report 2012-13 3967 Mental Health Review Tribunal—Annual Report 2012-13 3968 Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee: Report No. 30—Milk Pricing (Fair Milk Mark) Bill 2013
3870 Tabled Papers 19 Nov 2013
5 November 2013— 3969 Torres Strait-Northern Peninsula Hospital and Health Service—Annual Report 2012-13 3970 Report on Operations of the Land Tribunal established under the Aboriginal Land Act 1991—Annual Report 2012-13 6 November 2013— 3971 Final response from the Minister for Local Government, Community Recovery and Resilience (Mr Crisafulli) to a paper petition (2146-13) presented by Mrs Maddern, from 149 petitioners, requesting the House to pass a motion to co- operate with the Friends of the Burrum River System Group and put in place their flood mitigation and prevention solution 3972 Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions—Annual Report 2012-13 7 November 2013— 3973 Education and Innovation Committee: Report No. 19—Review of Auditor-General’s Report 11: 2012-13 Results of Audit: Education Sector Entities 2012, government response 3974 Office of the Public Advocate: People with intellectual disability or cognitive impairment residing long-term in health care facilities: Addressing the barriers to deinstitutionalisation—A system advocacy report, October 2013
8 November 2013— 3975 Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 34—Oversight of the Office of the Queensland Ombudsman, government response 3976 Letter, dated 4 November 2013, from Dr Ken Levy RFD, Acting Chairperson of the Crime and Misconduct Commission to the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee 3977 Memorandum, dated 5 November 2013, from Mr Philip Nase to the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee 3978 Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee: Report No. 94—Annual Report 2012-13 3979 Document, dated 4 October 2013, titled ‘Southport Priority Development Area Interim Land Use Plan’ (refer to Economic Development Amendment Regulation (No. 4) 2013: Subordinate Legislation No. 191 of 2013) 3980 Document, Regulatory Map Southport Priority Development Area (refer to Economic Development Amendment Regulation (No. 4) 2013: Subordinate Legislation No. 191 of 2013) 3981 Office of the Public Advocate—Annual Report 2012-13 3982 Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 35—Oversight of the Office of the Information Commissioner, government response
11 November 2013— 3983 Department of Environment and Heritage Protection: Report on the Administration of the Environmental Protection Act 1994—Annual Report 2012-13 3984 Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 44—Police Powers and Responsibilities and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 12 November 2013— 3985 Response from the Minister for Education, Training and Employment (Mr Langbroek) to an ePetition (2170-13) sponsored by the Clerk in accordance with Standing Order 119(4), from 17 petitioners, requesting the House to cause the amendment of section 15(1) of the Queensland Education (General Provisions) Regulation 2006, regarding age for enrolment in the preparatory year, by allowing a school principal to enrol a child in the preparatory year at the school if the child will be at least 5 years and 6 months on 31 December in the proposed year of attendance; or if the child will be at least 5 years and 5 months on 31 December in the proposed year of attendance and the child has attended a Queensland Government approved Kindergarten program in the year prior to the commencement of the preparatory year and the parent petitions the principal to enrol their child in the preparatory year 3986 Office of the Public Advocate ‘People with intellectual disability or cognitive impairment residing long-term in health care facilities: Addressing the barriers to deinstitutionalisation’ systems advocacy report: Addendum to Report 3987 Education and Innovation Committee: Report No. 25—The assessment methods used in senior mathematics, chemistry and physics in Queensland schools, erratum 3988 Land Court of Queensland—Annual Report 2012-13
13 November 2013— 3989 2012-13 Report on State Finances of the Queensland Government—30 June 2013 3990 Ethics Committee: Report No. 138—Annual Report 2012-13
14 November 2013— 3991 State Development, Infrastructure and Industry Committee: Report No. 32—Liquor (Red Tape Reduction) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 3992 Response from the Minister for National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing (Mr Dickson) to an ePetition (2141-13) sponsored by Ms Palaszczuk, from 189 petitioners, requesting the House to acknowledge Mal Meninga’s leadership for many years as a rugby league coach, captain and player, through the dedication of a statue of Mal Meninga at Suncorp Stadium
19 Nov 2013 Tabled Papers 3871
3993 Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee: Report No. 38—Review of the Auditor-General’s Report to Parliament 15: 2012-13—Enforcement and collection of parking fines 3994 District Court of Queensland—Annual Report 2012-13 3995 Legal Services Commission—Annual Report 2012-13
3996 Report to the Legislative Assembly from the Minister for Housing and Public Works (Mr Mander) pursuant to section 56A of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992, regarding the Residential Services (Accreditation) Regulation 2002
3997 Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee: Report No. 31—North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability and Another Act Amendment Bill 2013
3998 Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 45—Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013
3999 Response from the Minister for Transport and Main Roads (Mr Emerson) to a paper petition (2178-13) presented by Mr Ruthenberg, and an ePetition (2160-13), sponsored by the Clerk in accordance with Standing Order 119(4) from 3,653 and 865 petitioners respectively, requesting the House to reject any request by Moreton Bay Regional Council for significant majority funding for ‘option G’ of the West Petrie Bypass
4000 Response from the Minister for Transport and Main Roads (Mr Emerson) to an ePetition (2162-13), sponsored by the Clerk in accordance with Standing Order 119(4), from 77 petitioners, requesting the House to install flashing school zone signs along McGinn and Archdale Roads, Ferny Grove at the start of the school zones for Ferny Gove State School and Ferny Grove State High School
4001 Response from the Minister for Transport and Main Roads (Mr Emerson) to a paper petition (2176-13) and an ePetition (2166-13), sponsored by Hon. McArdle, from 2,132 and 32 petitioners respectively requesting the House to review TransLink’s proposed changes to the 609 bus service route, carry-out further consultation with Caloundra residents and stakeholders, and reinstate Golden Beach Esplanade as a bus stop along this route 4002 Queensland Independent Remuneration Tribunal Determination 2/2013 15 November 2013—
4003 Response from the Minister for Energy and Water Supply (Mr McArdle) to a paper petition (2175-13), presented by Hon. McVeigh, from 60 petitioners, requesting the House to slash the amount of proposed increases to electricity tariffs
4004 Response from the Minster for Transport and Main Roads (Mr Emerson) to a paper petition (2177-13) presented by Hon. McArdle, from 3,378 petitioners, requesting the House to urgently identify, support and resource the implementation of a management plan for the use of watercraft, including jet skis, in Pumicestone Passage 18 November 2013— 4005 Speech Pathologists Board of Queensland—Final Annual Report 2012-13 4006 Dental Technicians Board of Queensland—Final Annual Report 2012-13 4007 Office of Health Practitioner Registration Boards—Final Annual Report 2012-13 STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
The following statutory instruments were tabled by the Clerk––
Surat Basin Rail (Infrastructure Development and Management) Act 2012— 4017 Surat Basin Rail (Infrastructure Development and Management) (Postponement) Regulation 2013, No. 210 4018 Surat Basin Rail (Infrastructure Development and Management) (Postponement) Regulation 2013, No. 210, explanatory notes Health Ombudsman Act 2013— 4019 Proclamation commencing certain provisions, No. 211 4020 Proclamation commencing certain provisions, No. 211, explanatory notes
Casino Control Act 1982, Charitable and Non-Profit Gaming Act 1999, Gaming Machine Act 1991, Keno Act 1996, Lotteries Act 1997, Racing Act 2002, Wagering Act 1998— 4021 Gaming Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2013, No. 212 4022 Gaming Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2013, No. 212, explanatory notes
Electrical Safety Act 2002, State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999— 4023 Electrical Safety Regulation 2013, No. 213 4024 Electrical Safety Regulation 2013, No. 213, explanatory notes 4025 Electrical Safety Regulation 2013, No. 213, regulatory assessment statement
3872 Tabled Papers 19 Nov 2013
Weapons Act 1990— 4026 Weapons Categories Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2013, No. 214 4027 Weapons Categories Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2013, No. 214, explanatory notes
Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008— 4028 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2013, No. 215 4029 Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2013, No. 215, explanatory notes Building and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2013— 4030 Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 216 4031 Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 216, explanatory notes
Building Act 1975, Sustainable Planning Act 2009— 4032 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2013, No. 217 4033 Building and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2013, No. 217, explanatory notes
Hospitals Foundations Act 1982— 4034 Hospitals Foundations Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2013, No. 218 4035 Hospitals Foundations Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2013, No. 218, explanatory notes Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2013— 4036 Proclamation commencing certain provisions, No. 219 4037 Proclamation commencing certain provisions, No. 219, explanatory notes Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003— 4038 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2013, No. 220 4039 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2013, No. 220, explanatory notes Right to Information Act 2009— 4040 Right to Information Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2013, No. 221 4041 Right to Information Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2013, No. 221, explanatory notes State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999, Work Health and Safety Act 2011— 4042 Work Health and Safety and Another Regulation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2013, No. 222 4043 Work Health and Safety and Another Regulation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2013, No. 222, explanatory notes Torres Strait Islander Land Act 1991— 4044 Torres Strait Islander Land Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2013, No. 223 4045 Torres Strait Islander Land Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2013, No. 223, explanatory notes
Building Act 1975, Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000, Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002, Public Service Act 2008, Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991— 4046 Queensland Building Services Authority and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2013, No. 224 4047 Queensland Building Services Authority and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2013, No. 224, explanatory notes
Professional Standards Act 2004— 4048 Professional Standards (Professional Surveyors Occupational Association Scheme) Notice 2013, No. 225 4049 Professional Standards (Professional Surveyors Occupational Association Scheme) Notice 2013, No. 225, explanatory notes
MEMBERS’ PAPERS TABLED BY THE CLERK
The following members’ papers were tabled by the Clerk––
Member for Southport (Mr Molhoek)— 4050 Non-conforming petition relating to moving flying fox colonies out of the urban environment
Member for Maryborough (Mrs Maddern)— 4051 Non-conforming petition relating to Old Gympie Road, Bruce Highway and 8 Mile Intersection Member for Mulgrave (Mr Pitt)— 4052 Non-conforming petition relating to the Queensland Workers’ Compensation Scheme
Member for Hervey Bay (Mr Sorensen)— 4053 Non-conforming petition relating to U-Tech
19 Nov 2013 Ministerial Statements 3873
REPORT TABLED BY THE CLERK
The following report was tabled by the Clerk–– 4054 Report pursuant to Standing Order 165 (Clerical errors or formal changes to any Bill) detailing amendments to certain Bills, made by the Clerk, prior to assent by Her Excellency the Governor, viz— Local Government and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 Amendment made to Bill * Clause 15 (Amendment of s 176B (Preliminary assessments of complaints))— Page 14, line 23— Omit— Section 176B(1) to (5)— Insert— Section 176B(1) to (5)— * The page and line number references relate to the Bill, after amendments made in consideration in detail.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services Hon. CKT NEWMAN (Ashgrove—LNP) (Premier) (9.35 am): I formally advise the House that on 1 November 2013, Her Excellency the Governor appointed the member for Bundaberg, Hon. Jack Dempsey MP, to be Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services. This appointment has amended the minister’s ministerial title to reflect changes to the minister’s portfolio recommended by the Police and Community Safety Review, led by former Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty. These changes include the establishment of Queensland Fire and Emergency Services and the creation of the Public Safety Business Agency. For the information of the House, I table a copy of the Extraordinary Queensland Government Gazette of 1 November 2013, which outlines these changes. Tabled paper: Extraordinary Queensland Government Gazette of Friday, 1 November 2013 [4055].
Report, Members’ Daily Travelling Allowance Claims Hon. CKT NEWMAN (Ashgrove—LNP) (Premier) (9.36 am): Pursuant to section 1.3.1 of the Members’ Entitlement Handbook, I lay upon the table of the House the annual report of daily travelling allowance claims by members of the Legislative Assembly for 2012-13 which I have received from the Clerk of the Parliament. Tabled paper: Daily Travelling Allowance Claims by the Members of the Legislative Assembly—Annual Report 2012-13 [4056].
Underground Bus and Train Project Hon. CKT NEWMAN (Ashgrove—LNP) (Premier) (9.37 am): Queenslanders will soon have access to one of the most innovative public transport connections in the world. Last Sunday, along with the Treasurer, the Minister for Transport and Main Roads and the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, I announced the Brisbane Underground Bus and Train project. It is a 5.4-kilometre tunnel with two train lines in the lower section and two busway lanes in the upper section. It is an Australian first and a project that will be the envy of public transport chiefs everywhere. This project is a clear example of ‘can do’ and delivers on our election promise of better planning and better infrastructure. It will solve two of Brisbane’s major current congestion challenges—the Merivale Street train bridge and the Cultural Centre bus precinct incorporating Victoria Bridge—with one affordable and very elegant solution. It will deliver South-East Queensland’s public transport needs for the next 50 years. Let us contrast this with Labor’s fanciful proposal. Peter Beattie first raised the issue in 2005, but there has been little more than talk since then. Their proposals lacked vision and were unaffordable, which meant they could never be delivered, and they only solved half of the challenges facing this growing region. They focused on the rail issue but they never did anything about bus capacity issues across the south-east of the state, in particular inner city Brisbane. The comparisons could not be more stark. Labor’s project cost billions of dollars more than what we are proposing. Labor’s proposal did nothing to deal with bus congestion while ours takes 200 buses off congested Brisbane roads in morning peak hour. Labor would have resumed 108 homes, costing millions. Under our plan there will be no surface private property resumptions. What a great outcome! Most importantly, we will deliver, and isn’t that a nice change for Queenslanders? Labor did a lot of talking.
3874 Ministerial Statements 19 Nov 2013
They talked for about 6½ years on this issue, but those opposite only gave us more unaffordable, unreliable public transport, particularly when it came to the rail system. Now we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform Brisbane into a world-class city with a public transport system to match. It is also a great example of different levels of government working together—the Brisbane City Council, the Department of Transport and Main Roads, the Treasurer’s area—to deliver world-class public transport solutions. Next year we will have a public competition to come up with a permanent name for this project. We want the public to be involved in bringing this exciting project to life from the very beginning.
State Assessment and Referral Agency; Fitzgibbon Chase Hon. JW SEENEY (Callide—LNP) (Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning) (9.39 am): Planning reform is a crucial part of driving Queensland’s economic growth and it is an essential part of our government’s strategy for Queensland’s future. Our government is overhauling the state’s planning laws to cut red tape and deliver better planning processes and outcomes for all Queenslanders. Our aim is to create the most efficient and effective planning and development assessment system in Australia to drive the economic growth that we need for Queensland’s future. The single state planning policy to replace the 14 ad hoc, disjointed policies that existed under Labor will be finalised in coming weeks. Additionally, we have introduced Queensland Planning Provisions version 3.0, delivering a new framework for councils to use to develop their local planning schemes. But to date, the most significant reform is the new State Assessment and Referral Agency that has become known as SARA. SARA has now been up and running since 1 July. Previously, an applicant would have had to submit applications to up to seven state agencies to get a project underway. What SARA has meant for a beverage company, for example, seeking a new site on which to expand its operations is that it has only had to consult with and obtain approval from one single state agency. Under the Labor government, it would have had to consult with and obtain approval from about five different agencies on a range of matters such as waterways and vegetation and the project’s impact on a whole range of things, and it would have received approvals that were often confusing and contradictory. I am pleased to inform the House that, despite being in operation for less than six months, SARA was the overall winner at the Planning Institute of Australia 2013 awards last month. SARA won the 2013 Improving Planning Processes and Practices Award and then went on to take out the top award over 14 other finalists, from 70 nominees. Businesses and councils are delighted, not just with SARA but also with the planning reforms that we are putting in place. I am also pleased to be able to inform the House that Economic Development Queensland recently won the 2013 UDIA State Award for Excellence in Residential Subdivision. The award was won for the Fitzgibbon Chase residential development located in Fitzgibbon near Carseldine in Brisbane. The development includes five hectares of landscaped parkland, 40 hectares of recreational bushland with walking trails and an award-winning community centre. Through EDQ we are streamlining and fast-tracking this type of development throughout the state, delivering smartly designed, well priced homes and living options for Queenslanders and facilitating economic growth through the construction industry. These awards demonstrate how the Newman government is delivering on its promise for better planning and infrastructure for Queensland. We are getting on with ensuring Queensland remains a great state with great opportunity.
State Finances Hon. TJ NICHOLLS (Clayfield—LNP) (Treasurer and Minister for Trade) (9.42 am): The Newman government promised Queenslanders we would get the state’s finances back on track and I am pleased to inform the House that that is exactly what we are doing. Last week Queensland Treasury released the report on the state finances for 2012-13 showing the government’s expenses for the year grew by just 0.2 per cent. Mr Rickuss: How much? Mr NICHOLLS: I thank the member for Lockyer for the question: 0.2 per cent. That is the lowest level of expenses growth since accrual accounting began in the Queensland government in 1998-99. To put this into perspective we have to compare it with the record of those opposite. Labor’s record was an appalling average expenses growth of 8.9 per cent a year over the decade to 2011-12. Let me say it again: in its first full year of operation, the LNP’s expenses growth was 0.2 per cent;
19 Nov 2013 Ministerial Statements 3875
over a decade, the ALP’s expenses growth was almost nine per cent a year. Is it any wonder Queensland went broke in a boom under Labor? Is it any wonder there was no gas left in the tank when it came to the global financial crisis? Opposition members interjected. Mr NICHOLLS: Is it any wonder they went to an election in 2009 not telling people what their true promises were because they could not control expenses? We can hear them squawk. We can hear them squawk from Currumbin to the cape because they know they have been caught out. As a result of the savings that this government has been able to make, we have been able to improve the bottom line, with our operating balance for 2012-13 $360 million better than estimated. I turn to the fiscal operating balance. The member for Mulgrave sits there. We should ask him if he can explain the fiscal operating balance, because his predecessor could not. The fiscal operating balance is nearly $1 billion better than expected, that is, $1 billion better. Can any member remember a Labor government coming into this House and saying, ‘We did $1 billion better than we ever promised’? That never happened, because they could not do it. The fiscal operating balance is $945 million better than expected, despite $40 million less revenue this year because of declines in coal prices and GST revenues. Despite the fact that our revenue was less, our outcome is nearly $1 billion better. We came to government with five pledges. We pledged to revitalise front-line services and every dollar we save in expenses means more money can go into delivering those front-line services. For example, the $359 million I spoke about is enough to build another seven top-level primary schools or provide around another 350 hospital beds in Queensland. We have stopped the rot, but at the end of the 2012-13 year state debt will still stand at around $69 billion. Madam Speaker, that means that you, I and every other man, woman and child in Queensland are carrying Labor’s debt of $14,500. Those opposite failed to grasp the fact that while we have that debt we have to pay the interest bill and that left us with an interest bill of $10 million a day. If we were not paying off Labor’s debt, we could fund a dual carriageway on the Bruce Highway all the way to Rockhampton, which will be of interest to the member for Keppel. We could do that in just one year if we were not paying off Labor’s debt. The government is determined to get Queensland’s finances back in the black so we can fund front-line services. In 2012-13, we managed savings that brought the deficit in at $7.74 billion, which is $1 billion less than forecast. The fiscal repair measures we are implementing are working and they are instilling confidence in Queensland businesses and consumers. With confidence in our economy, we will see growth and it is that growth that will ensure Queensland remains a great state with great opportunity.
Queensland Health, Industrial Arrangements Hon. LJ SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Minister for Health) (9.47 am): In our Blueprint for Better Healthcare in Queensland released in February, this can-do government said it would tackle another of Labor’s unhealthy legacies by simplifying awards and correcting serious flaws in Queensland Health industrial arrangements. It was the muddled complexity of the former government’s 4,500 award variations, workplace agreements and their own incompetence that gave Queenslanders the $1.25 billion Health payroll fiasco and earned the scorn of the state’s Auditor-General. The Auditor-General has also reported on Labor’s mismanagement of private practice rights in Queensland hospitals, where cumulative losses of $804 million and ongoing costs of $120 million a year were uncovered. Dating from 2006, when the member for Bundamba was assistant to Labor’s corrupt former health minister Gordon Nuttall, these poor administrative practices disconnected the salaries of senior clinicians from the reality of their day-to-day duties and the needs of Queensland patients. Re-establishing these linkages, updating the salaries and entitlements of senior doctors and strengthening the relationship between clinicians and hospital and health services is work left undone by Labor and is another Labor mess that this government will fix. Our schedule for the full transition of senior medical personnel to contracts will include signed agreements by the end of April and implementation— Ms PALASZCZUK: I rise to a point of order. Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister for Health, take your seat.
3876 Ministerial Statements 19 Nov 2013
Ms PALASZCZUK: These are matters that are clearly before the House in a bill that is likely to be debated today, according to the Notice Paper. I have listened to the minister— Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of the Opposition. Minister, there is a bill before the House in regard to contracts. I ask you to please avoid anticipating debate. Mr SPRINGBORG: I will. This refers to no specifics. As I indicated, our schedule for the full transition of senior medical personnel to contracts will include signed agreements by the end of April and implementation on 1 July 2014. Yesterday, after months of hard work and negotiation with doctors’ representatives, the first completed draft of contracts to serve our visiting and senior medical officers— Madam SPEAKER: Minister, I believe there is a bill before the House in respect of contracts. I ask you to not anticipate debate on the bill before the House. Mr SPRINGBORG: As part of the ongoing negotiations and discussions which we are having with our senior medical staff in Queensland, I would like to commend Dr Ross Cartmill, who in a most forthright way in terms of his advocacy on behalf of his members actually agreed in principle to the contents of the agreement which is going to go out for consultation with his members over the course of the next few weeks and months. Ms Palaszczuk: Speak on the bill. Mr SPRINGBORG: It does not change— Ms Palaszczuk: We could not ask a question last parliament. Madam SPEAKER: Minister, I appreciate that there is a bill before the House with respect to contracts and that could be viewed as being part of your ministerial statement. I would ask you to please not anticipate the debate before the House. Mr SPRINGBORG: As I indicated, we have clearly had discussions and negotiations with visiting medical officers. We have agreed in principle to a contract. Those contracts will now go out for negotiation with members. We look forward to the results of those discussions and consultations with members to deliver better outcomes for patients, better certainty for clinicians in Queensland and better value for taxpayers.
Gill, Ms D Hon. SL DICKSON (Buderim—LNP) (Minister for National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing) (9.50 am): I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable member of the racing community. The racing industry is a very tough business. This absolute truth was brought home with the tragic death of jockey Desiree Gill, who passed away on Sunday, 10 November as a result of serious injuries suffered in a race fall at the Sunshine Coast Turf Club. In a week when the nation stopped to watch a horse race, the life of a 45-year-old jockey, wife to Barry, mother of two sons, Peter and Ryan, and friend and mentor, was cut short. Desiree was farewelled yesterday by hundreds of her friends and family who were all proud but not surprised to hear that this extraordinary woman had been as generous in death as she was in life, saving five other people through the ultimate gift of organ donation. It is easy to recount Desiree’s great successes in racing over the past 30 years. She was a seven-time champion jockey at her home track of Gympie, the leading jockey on the South-East Queensland country circuit for the past two years, held over 230 career victories and on Melbourne Cup day landed four winners at Bundaberg. It was a great career, begun when women riders struggled to gain acceptance in a male dominated industry. Desiree was a pioneer for female jockeys and was widely admired in the racing industry. In the mid-1990s she broke her ankle badly enough that her career looked to be over. Well, not on your nelly. After making her comeback in 2003, her leg was smashed in 10 places. This put her on the sidelines for another 4½ years. In December 2010 Desiree was also kicked in the face when saddling a horse and had her jaw broken. But when the going got tough, Desiree proved tougher. She returned to the top of the jockey ranks on South-East Queensland country tracks. Desiree took this position very seriously and loved to help and mentor all jockeys, but particularly her fellow female jockeys, in the hope of seeing them succeed in the industry. Her abilities in this area were recognised and she was employed by Racing Queensland to tutor young jockeys. Many of today’s leading apprentices acknowledge the help and support Desiree provided.
19 Nov 2013 Ethics Committee 3877
The racing industry across Australia recognised the life of Desiree Gill with races named in her honour across this great country, including last Saturday’s Roma Cup being renamed the Desiree Gill Memorial Roma Cup, which I was honoured to bestow. Racing Queensland, in conjunction with the National Jockeys Trust, has also established a fund in honour of Desiree. I would like to offer our deepest sympathies to Desiree’s husband, Barry, her sons, Peter and Ryan, and her many family and friends at this terrible time. Madam SPEAKER: I call the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services. You have two minutes, Minister.
Schoolies Week, Queensland Police Service Hon. JM DEMPSEY (Bundaberg—LNP) (Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services) (9.53 am): Schoolies week is often a very worrying time for Queensland parents with thousands of school leavers taking part in the annual schoolies celebrations on the Gold Coast. But I would like to assure those parents that the Queensland Police Service will be patrolling the schoolies precinct and areas where schoolies gather regularly. The Newman government has made a commitment to ensure that all schoolies are safe as they celebrate the end of their secondary education and begin the next exciting phase of their lives. Under the former Labor government, little provision was made to allow the Queensland Police Service to provide additional police officers to help patrol major events to keep our communities safe and secure. This government’s can-do commitment to providing an additional 1,100 officers across the state over four years allows the QPS to provide officers to major events while maintaining policing levels at other locations. Unfortunately, a very small number of schoolies have been taking their lives into their own hands with their reckless behaviour on hotel balconies. I am sure members here have seen the shocking footage of schoolies, many floors up, climbing between balconies, putting their lives at risk and causing heartache for parents, police and the community. I urge schoolies to take responsibility and stop this reckless behaviour. Police have already arrested two schoolies for this dangerous behaviour and will not hesitate to act when someone puts their own life or other lives at risk. Police are not out to ruin anyone’s fun, but are asking all schoolies to be prepared, attentive and safe during celebrations and not to hesitate to call 000 in an emergency. Until Saturday, 30 November, more than 300 police officers will be patrolling the schoolies precinct and surrounding areas to ensure revellers remain safe and secure. Police have put many measures in place to ensure that schoolies is a memorable and safe time. It is not just police who are responsible for the safety of those in the schoolies precinct. State Emergency Service volunteers, medical professionals, ambulance officers and volunteers will also be on hand to help anyone who needs support. I would like to congratulate the vast majority of 2013 schoolies for their behaviour so far. Since the schoolies period officially began on Friday, 16 November, just 34 of the 173 arrests made by police have been schoolies. I urge all those at schoolies events to continue to look after their mates and ensure everyone remains safe. Police over the coming weeks will continue to be out in force to ensure all schoolies remain safe while they celebrate their achievements. Queensland certainly is a great state with great opportunities, but it is a safe state for our future citizens.
ETHICS COMMITTEE
Report Mr CRANDON (Coomera—LNP) (9.56 am), by leave: I lay upon the table Ethics Committee report No. 139, titled Matter of privilege referred by the registrar on 19 March 2013 relating to an alleged failure of a member to register interests in the Register of Members’ Interest and Register of Related Persons’ Interest and matter of privilege referred by the Speaker on 4 June 2013 relating to an alleged deliberate misleading of the House by a member. Tabled paper: Ethics Committee: Report No. 139—Matter of privilege referred by the registrar on 19 March 2013 relating to an alleged failure of a member to register interests in the Register of Members’ Interest and Register of Related Persons’ Interest and matter of privilege referred by the Speaker on 4 June 2013 relating to an alleged deliberate misleading of the House by a member [4008].
3878 Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee 19 Nov 2013
This report concerns two matters of privilege that relate to the member for Redcliffe, Mr Scott Driscoll MP. Madam Speaker will recall that on 31 July 2013 the committee advised the House in interim report No. 134 that it had resolved to recommence its inquiry into these matters. The committee had previously suspended its inquiries into these matters on the basis that the matters were related to parallel criminal investigations being conducted by the Crime and Misconduct Commission and/or the Queensland Police Service. Since recommencing these inquiries, the committee has worked diligently towards their finalisation while, at the same time, seeking to ensure that all parties to the matters were afforded procedural fairness. This task was made all the more challenging due to the limited participation in the committee’s processes by the member for Redcliffe on medical grounds. The committee was careful to seek advice from the member’s medical specialists, with the member’s consent, where appropriate, throughout the process. The material before the committee was extensive and the issues to be considered were complex in nature. Accordingly, the committee gave very detailed consideration to the material and deliberated on it, at length, over the past four months. In conducting its inquiries, the committee considered the two matters referred to it as separate matters and the committee reached its findings in relation to each matter, based on the merits of the individual matter. Whilst treating the two matters of privilege separately, the committee was aware that the matters were closely related. Having arrived at its findings in respect of each matter, the committee reached the conclusion that the cumulative effect of its findings was so serious as to have a bearing on the honour and dignity of the Legislative Assembly. The committee was very conscious of its role in setting the standards that the Queensland community expects of its members of parliament and the significance of the precedent value set by its final recommendations. In drafting its report, the committee took advice from the CMC to ensure that this report would in no way jeopardise the CMC’s related investigations and any legal processes that might flow from those investigations. In addition, the committee sought independent legal advice to confirm the legal correctness of the processes it followed, its ultimate findings and its recommendations to the Legislative Assembly. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the CMC, Mr Driscoll’s medical specialist and Mr Peter Davis QC for the advice and assistance provided to the committee throughout the course of the inquiry. I also thank the other members of the committee for the way they have worked in sifting through the complex evidence presented to it, in applying that evidence to the elements of the charges of contempt before them, and in arriving at a considered and balanced consensus in relation to the findings and recommendations. I commend the report and the committee’s recommendations to the House.
LEGAL AFFAIRS AND COMMUNITY SAFETY COMMITTEE
Office of the Information Commissioner, Reports Mr BERRY (Ipswich—LNP) (10.00 am): I lay upon the table two reports of the Office of the Information Commissioner: report No. 3 of 2013-14 to the Legislative Assembly titled Follow-up of review recommendations (Queensland Health and Queensland Police Service): Review of agency adoption of recommendations made under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) and the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) and report No. 4 of 2013-14 to the Legislative Assembly titled Compliance review—Department of Education, Training and Employment: Review of Department of Education, Training and Employment compliance with the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) and the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld). These reports are not reports of the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee. However, under the Right to Information Act 2009 and the Information Privacy Act 2009, I am required to table the reports on the commissioner’s behalf. I commend the reports to the House. Tabled paper: Office of the Information Commissioner: Report No. 3 for 2013-14—Follow-up review recommendations (Queensland Health and Queensland Police Service): Review of agency adoption of recommendations made under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) and the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) [4057]. Tabled paper: Office of the Information Commissioner: Report No. 4 for 2013-14—Compliance review, Department of Education, Training and Employment: Review of Department of Education, Training and Employment compliance with the Right to Information Act 2009 (Qld) and the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) [4058].
19 Nov 2013 Questions Without Notice 3879
NOTICE OF MOTION
Infrastructure Projects Ms TRAD (South Brisbane—ALP) (10.01 am): I give notice that I will move— That this House: • notes the Newman government’s failure to initiate a single major publicly funded infrastructure project in its first 20 months in office; • recognises the government’s failure to properly plan new transport infrastructure in Brisbane and regional centres; • acknowledges the Newman government’s rejection, on political grounds, of the former Labor government’s Cross River Rail project that would have avoided the rail network crisis facing the Brisbane region; • notes that the Cross River Rail project had received endorsement from Infrastructure Australia after a rigorous cost-benefit analysis; and • calls on the Premier to: – rule out asset sales to fund his latest tunnel vision, and – guarantee that the project will not result in budget blowouts like the Clem7, the Go Between Bridge, Legacy Way and the City Cycle scheme.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Madam SPEAKER: Question time will finish at 11.03 am.
Crime and Misconduct Commission, Chair Ms PALASZCZUK (10.03 am): My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier explain to the House why the LNP government extended Dr Levy’s temporary appointment as CMC chair for another seven months when the recruitment process for a new Under Treasurer took approximately eight days? Mr NEWMAN: I thank the honourable member for her question. I believe that actually there is already information on this out in the public domain. In relation to firstly the appointment of a new Under Treasurer, Mr Mark Gray is somebody who has worked for this government in his capacity as the Executive Officer of the Commission of Audit. He was also in the Treasury department for about 20 years and, indeed, served the former Labor government in his role as a Queensland public servant, and he is well respected. He was also the head of Macquarie Bank in Queensland. So we were lucky that a highly suitable candidate was available who was at that time serving at the Queensland Competition Authority. So it was a delight to be able to appoint someone quickly and swiftly to replace Helen Gluer, the current Under Treasurer. Before I then talk about Dr Levy, I want to take the opportunity to thank Helen Gluer for her services as the Under Treasurer of Queensland over the last 19 months—the first female Under Treasurer in this state and, indeed, we are advised the first female Under Treasurer of any state government in the nation, and remember it was this government, the Newman government, that made that appointment. I thank Helen Gluer for her great service to Queensland and we wish her well in the future; we really do. It is her decision to go. She has expressed a wish to spend more time with her family. In relation to Dr Levy, we have made it very, very clear that there is a process of reform and restructure to hand in relation to the Crime and Misconduct Commission. That process is underway. We think it is inappropriate for us to go and seek a permanent appointment as chairman of the CMC until those reform issues are sorted out.
Education Funding Ms PALASZCZUK: My question is to the Minister for Education. I refer to claims made by the minister that he has secured a no-strings-attached funding deal for education in Queensland from the Abbott government, and I ask: if extra funding has been secured, why are literacy coaches and behaviour support teachers being sacked from Queensland schools? Mr LANGBROEK: I thank the honourable member for the question. Of course this is a reference to today’s story about the low SES national partnership that Kate Ellis, the federal shadow education minister, has been referring to. What we need to look at here is the whole process that has happened over the last year or over the last number of years of a national partnership that was
3880 Questions Without Notice 19 Nov 2013
certainly admirable in its intentions. There is no doubt that I have seen when I have been around the state attending principal forums—in fact, last week I was with the honourable member for Gympie at a principal forum where we had 22 principals—that the problem with the low SES national partnership is that there are about 131 schools, I am advised, that were part of this national partnership and some are expiring at the end of this year, and there has been considerable uncertainty as to what was going to happen with the national partnership. The problem in Gympie exemplified the problem across the state. Here we had a federal government over the last few years in typical Labor fashion throwing more money at a problem— always looking at inputs, not necessarily looking at outputs. I am the first to acknowledge that those literacy and numeracy coaches were doing a great job or whether it was to do with enrolments—I have seen the schools at which they have had photos of every student up there, whether it was at Beenleigh State High or at the schools around Logan or Caboolture or Gympie. But in Gympie only three schools, as I am advised or as I recall, were actually recipients of the low SES national partnership. Even those teachers and principals from those schools said, ‘It’s not fair that we’re getting it but those neighbouring schools aren’t.’ But the greater problem comes from the fact that the federal shadow minister, Kate Ellis, is now bringing up this issue when she was part of a government that just a couple of months ago could have given certainty to all of those schools over the next few years by extending the national partnership into the future. Instead of that, she and the now federal opposition leader, the then education minister at the time, Bill Shorten, decided to play a game about education to coincide with the federal election that we just had. It was from their attempts to say, ‘We’re not going to continue the national partnership for low SES schools because we want to include it in something called the Gonski funding’—which of course even Kevin Rudd rejected and brought on the Better Schools Plan funding—that we now have to sort out the mess. It is interesting that the federal shadow education minister, Kate Ellis, wants to speak about national partnerships when she is responsible for the national partnership about early childhood. If there is anything that members here can advise the opposition leader, it is the uncertainty that is over the national partnership about early childhood which is due to expire at the end of next year and which the then minister at the time, Kate Ellis, was unable to provide certainty about. In fact, her words were that it was ‘all about planning’ when parents cannot get into child-care centres, whereas we know it was all about affordability and cost of living. That is why they stand condemned by their actions.
Workers Compensation Mr CAVALLUCCI: My question without notice is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. I refer to the government’s changes to workers compensation arrangements voted on in the Legislative Assembly on 17 October this year. In view of the importance of these new arrangements and the need to maintain the integrity of the legislative process, is there any evidence available that would call these critical features into question? Mr BLEIJIE: I thank the honourable member for Brisbane Central for the question. It is such an important question. Members, including the member for Brisbane Central, know that a few weeks ago we debated in the House the workers compensation legislation. This was to ensure we had the best scheme in Australia for workers but we also had the best scheme in Australia in terms of low premiums for employers. I think this government achieved the right balance by protecting the ability of workers to claim through the statutory scheme but also making sure we can reduce premiums by 10 per cent to 15 per cent from next year, helping businesses in Queensland. If we help businesses through the economic recovery this government is doing, businesses will employ more Queenslanders. I am pleased to say that these reforms have been passed and have now been implemented. Members will have seen the campaign the government is now running: ‘If you’re a Queensland worker, you’re covered.’ Despite all the lunacy from those opposite, despite all the misinformation and the mistruths, Queensland workers are covered. If you are a Queensland worker, you are covered. Part of the parliamentary process is integrity and accountability. We know that chapter 41 of the standing orders sets out the requirements for registers of interests. Chapter 40 sets out the requirements for declarations of interests. Importantly, standing order 260 states— ... a member shall, in respect of any question in the House or a committee, declare any pecuniary interest (of which the member is aware) (whether or not it is a matter of public policy) that the member or a related person has in the question, if such pecuniary interest is greater than the interest held in common ...
19 Nov 2013 Questions Without Notice 3881
It is with regret that I advise the House today that the honourable member for South Brisbane appears to have ignored this rule. I table an extract of the honourable member’s register of interests as at 19 November 2013. Tabled paper: Copy of member for South Brisbane’s Register of Interests [4059]. In particular, I draw the House’s attention to items 6, 7 and 17—references to the VB Practice Trust. At item 20 of her interests, the trust is explained— The trust declared at section 6, 7 and 17 has an interest in a law firm that acts on behalf of a number of organisations including various employers, insurers and self-insurers. Why is this important? It is important because on 17 October when the workers compensation changes were debated in this House the member for South Brisbane made no reference to her interest in that scheme and the trust, and she remained silent throughout the debate despite voting against the legislation. The firm to which the honourable member’s register of interests refers is MVM Legal, a firm in which the honourable member’s husband is a partner in which she holds a beneficial interest. MVM Legal’s website proclaims— Through the WorkCover panel appointment, we also act on behalf of many large employers who chose MVM Legal to handle their defence work due to its demonstrated experience ... I table that extract from the firm’s website. Tabled paper: Printout of web page of MVM Legal, page id 44 [4060]. This is about integrity and accountability. The member for South Brisbane has failed on all fronts to declare her beneficial financial interest in this legislation and against her pecuniary interests. Madam Speaker, I have more to say about this and I will be writing to you about it. (Time expired)
State Schools, Closures Mr MULHERIN: My question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Employment. Will the minister confirm that funding allocated to a special needs student previously studying at Toowoomba South State School has not followed him to his new school, even though his transfer is a direct result of the minister’s decision to close his old school? Mr LANGBROEK: I thank the honourable member for the question. Given that this member is one of the most experienced members in this House, I would have thought if he would like a specific answer to a question such as a specific case then he would know he can approach me or my department and we will find out the information. He is trying to make a point about school closures and then trying to make an association that money follows the child. We make sure that we have special resourcing along the lines of the federal scheme that has been announced and debated over the last year and a half. Whether it is called Gonski or Better Schools, we have funding for students in those six areas of need—Indigenous, socioeconomic status, disability, English as a second language, small schools and remote schools. Issues of disability are very important. We have almost double the funding for students with a disability. That happens no matter which school they go to. I can give an absolute assurance that as a result of decisions we have made about closing schools—we have announced that at the end of this term there will be six school closures, but we are also planning 11 new schools for thousands of students throughout Queensland. One of the new schools is in Toowoomba at Highfields, which I note the member for Toowoomba North is very appreciative of. That is something we promised in the last election campaign and we were determined to deliver. For all of those students who are so affected at any of those schools in any of the areas with which they have concern, whether it is to do with transportation, uniforms, books or the particular disabilities they may have, we will make the necessary arrangements down to the individual level to make sure no-one is inconvenienced or disadvantaged, apart from the fact that everyone would like to stay at their school because we all have special memories of the schools we grew up at. But remember that hundreds of schools have been closed over the last 20 years under the Labor government. They are things that it is appropriate for us to do, even though they are difficult decisions. It must be balanced with the knowledge that we will make the necessary arrangements for students in those schools to transition to their new schools in 2014. We will make appropriate provisions for new schools and new facilities across this state with more than 500,000 students. But it is appropriate that if honourable members have specific issues to raise them with me. The Deputy
3882 Questions Without Notice 19 Nov 2013
Leader of the Opposition certainly knows that. It is a bit disappointing that he has chosen to try to relate two separate matters—the issue of disability and the issue of school closure—in a tawdry political stunt in question time in the last political week of the year.
Workers Compensation Mr RUTHENBERG: My question without notice is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. In view of the Attorney-General’s answer to the earlier question on the workers compensation scheme, why is it important that those who have special interests in the scheme and a capacity to influence the outcome of any changes to it declare their interests?
Speaker’s Ruling, Question Out of Order Madam SPEAKER: Order! I listened to the previous question. As this question is linked to that, I remind members that matters pertaining to registers of interests are to be referred to the Clerk. It is not within the Attorney-General’s portfolio. I rule that matter out of order. Mr BLEIJIE: I rise to a point of order, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order? Mr BLEIJIE: Madam Speaker, the question was in relation to workers compensation that this House addressed some two to three weeks ago. I put it that the question is entirely in order as it deals with workers compensation which falls entirely within my portfolio. Madam SPEAKER: Order! I have listened to your point of order, Attorney-General. Unfortunately for your argument, the question was directly referenced to the previous question and answer and therefore I rule it out of order. I call the Manager of Opposition Business.
Sale of Public Assets Mr PITT: My question without notice is to the Premier. I refer to page 6-85 of the 2012-13 Report on state finances tabled last week which details that the government made a loss of $302 million of taxpayers’ dollars on asset sales and investments last financial year including the fire sale of seven CBD office towers. Will the Premier now acknowledge that he sold assets without an election mandate and explain how this is a good deal for Queenslanders?
Speaker’s Ruling, Question Out of Order Madam SPEAKER: Order! I have listened to the question and I also have before me the private member’s motion tonight which makes reference to asset sales. I therefore rule your question out of order. Resources Industry Mr COSTIGAN: My question without notice is to the Premier. How is the government contributing to better planning for the resources industry, as one of the four pillars of the Queensland economy? Mr NEWMAN: The member for Whitsunday is back in strength. It is great to see him here today. I thank him for his question, because we can talk about what is really going on in the state and how we are going to drive the state’s economy forward. This government remains committed to better planning and better delivery for this state. This includes long-term strategic planning for the Queensland resources sector. Today at the Queensland Resources Council lunch I will be announcing the government’s new ResourcesQ initiative based on the very successful work we have done with the tourism industry through DestinationQ. The initiative that I am announcing will be led by Minister Cripps and will bring the industry together with government to identify issues and pinpoint areas where the government can assist. It is going to help build future initiatives to make sure that our resources industry is able to continue to compete and grow in the longer term because we recognise the major contribution that resources make to Queensland’s economy and growth. In 2011-12 resources generated over $3.5 billion in royalties and 70,000 direct jobs. We are already working to address the immediate issues that will help get the industry booming again. We are slashing approval times. We are clearing the backlog of tenure applications. We are innovating to
19 Nov 2013 Questions Without Notice 3883
incentivise businesses to get on with projects that will create thousands of new jobs and open up new regions and new basins like the Galilee for development. In ResourcesQ the government sees a new opportunity to partner with industry to develop a clear direction not just for now, but also for the next 30 years. Is there a theme developing here in this government? That is right, it is a visionary government that looks to the long long-term to make sure that this is a great state with opportunity. The importance of this ResourcesQ initiative cannot be underestimated because it is in all of our interests to ensure we work together to strengthen our economic base, our economic core. We have noted that the current global economic climate is impacting on the resources industry and particularly the coal sector, but we know that the long-term prospects for resources in Queensland are extremely positive. We do need a collaborative vision to ensure the long-term prosperity of that resource development in our state and to lock in future benefits. As we did with DestinationQ by bringing the industry together with government and all of the stakeholders and spending some solid time planning the future, we know that we can really set up this state for the next 30 years for resources and energy in Queensland. This is a can-do government that is delivering on its commitments, particularly better planning and better delivery of infrastructure, to supercharge the Queensland economy.
Public Service, Jobs Mrs MILLER: My question is to the Premier. I refer the Premier to his statement last December in which he ruled out further Public Service job losses, a commitment the government has failed to keep, and I ask: will the Premier rule out further job losses in the Queensland government, particularly in health, education, agriculture and emergency services, in 2014? Mr NEWMAN: I thank the honourable member for her question. To start the answer, I first need to remind honourable members opposite about their hit list. We remember that. We can never let them forget that, because they seem to have amnesia. They were going to lose 43,000 employees— around 20 per cent—of the Queensland Public Service and they never fessed up to that. That is the bottom line. In contrast, we are getting on with the fiscal repair task. They left the finances of the state of Queensland in tatters. We were heading for a hundred billion dollars worth of debt and that was simply not sustainable. As we have heard already from the Treasurer today, we have turned it around. We have seen a 0.2 per cent increase in expenses in the 2012-13 financial year. In contrast, under Labor the expenses of government went up on average 8.9 per cent every year for 10 years. Clearly, that was non-sustainable. The reason for these important changes to get control of the state’s finances is, ultimately, as I say to Queenslanders, if government does not do the right thing in this area, the fact is that Queenslanders pay: they pay through their hip pocket, they pay through higher taxes and charges, higher motor vehicle registration, higher public transport fares, as we saw from the current Leader of the Opposition who proudly at the time announced 15 per cent, 15 per cent, 15 per cent, 15 per cent, 15 per cent fare increases. Now she comes in here, clean as the driven snow and says, ‘There was no massive increase in public transport fares to pay for a failing government finance position a few years ago’. Opposition members interjected. Mr NEWMAN: I think I have got to them. They are interjecting. Look at them. The member for Mulgrave cannot restrain himself. The bottom line is that we are doing the right thing for Queenslanders, and the big, tough decisions were made last year. We said that the massive downsizing had to occur, and I have painted the reasons. It has been done. We all know that employees come and go in an organisation and that organisations change, and that will continue. The bottom line is that this is a government that is committed to the reform of the Queensland Public Service. Why? Because we want to have the best state government in the nation. We want to be performing and delivering services and infrastructure for Queenslanders in the very best possible way. That is what it is about. It is about working hard. It is about being can-do. It is about taking this state forward and delivering for Queenslanders.
Workers Compensation Mr KAYE: My question without notice is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. Can the Attorney-General outline the role that private firms play in supporting the Queensland workers compensation scheme?
3884 Questions Without Notice 19 Nov 2013
Mr BLEIJIE: I thank the member for Greenslopes for the question. We know that private firms do play quite a substantial role in the workers compensation scheme so much so that in the last financial report of the workers compensation scheme the 11 private firms appointed benefited by some $41 million in fees. When we look at the types of private firms that are providing that type of work, one that would come up is MVM Legal. Incidentally, I heard earlier today in the House that one of our members, the member for South Brisbane, has a beneficial interest in that particular firm, MVM Legal, and that her husband is a partner of that firm. I know that when I talked earlier about workers compensation and the government reforms the member for South Brisbane got a little touchy on the subject. Mr PITT: I rise to a point of order. Madam Speaker, I seek your guidance. The honourable the Attorney-General has previously said that he would write to you on this matter and has made these claims. I ask you to rule on whether he is able to continue giving an argument. Madam SPEAKER: Please take your seat. Until such time as the matter is referred—however, this is a different question from the one which was ruled out of order before. I call the Attorney-General. Mr BLEIJIE: Interestingly, the website of this firm MVM Legal, which partakes in this sort of work, states—
MVM Legal is a boutique firm with a premier client base including WorkCover Queensland, Q-COMP and seven Self Insurers within the WorkCover Scheme. In our commercial litigation practice, we act for Construction Companies and— and members will love this one— developers both big and small. I wonder what the West End democratic socialist collective in the electorate of the member for South Brisbane would think about a law firm acting for big developers in which the member for South Brisbane has a direct financial interest and the fact that she did not come into this place and say to the people of Queensland, ‘I can’t participate in this debate. I can’t vote on this because I have a direct financial interest in the workers compensation scheme in Queensland.’ MVM Legal also says that they act for firms like TABCorp, Toll Holdings, Thiess, Wesfarmers, Veolia and CS Energy. Its partners are Mr Jamie McPherson and Mr Damien van Brunschot, the husband of the honourable member for South Brisbane. I table some extracts of the website of MVM Legal. Tabled paper: Printout of web page of MVM Legal [4061]. Tabled paper: Printout of two web pages of MVM Legal, page id 328 [4062]. As I have indicated, the firm trumped in its involvement in common law claims on behalf of employers. It trumped in its claims in common law. So the introduction of the five per cent threshold where companies will no longer have to defend accident claims means that there will be less work for this particular firm. Less work, therefore, means less financial income for the trust of the member for South Brisbane that she has declared. So there is a direct conflict of interest. I put to honourable members if they have not worked out my point yet that the member for South Brisbane voted against the workers compensation legislation not on ideological grounds but on financial grounds as it will impact her financial affairs. Those opposite claim to have integrity. Let the member for South Brisbane stand up and deny— (Time expired)
Anti-Association Laws Mrs CUNNINGHAM: My question without notice is to the Attorney-General. Attorney, in relation to the implementation of the new anti-association laws passed recently, how do families whose fathers, mothers or other immediate family members are members of targeted associations manage attendance at family functions such as weddings, Christmas and the like where the attendance of association members would be expected, and how do other family members practically manage these circumstances?
Speaker’s Ruling, Question Out of Order Madam SPEAKER: Member for Gladstone, from the way that you have worded the question it appears to be hypothetical, and therefore I am going to rule it out of order.
19 Nov 2013 Questions Without Notice 3885
Electricity Prices Mrs FRANCE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Energy and Water Supply. Can the minister advise the quickest and easiest way to reduce electricity prices for Queensland pensioners, families and businesses, and what are the impediments? Mr McARDLE: I thank the member for Pumicestone for the question. I had the great pleasure to be at Bribie Island in the member’s seat last Thursday to speak to her constituents in relation to power prices. It was a well attended event, and I congratulate the member for her great efforts there. The only claim I would make is the member claiming Pumicestone Passage as her own body of water. How incorrect she can be in that. Let me turn to the thrust of the question. It is important that we contrast the Labor government train wreck in relation to electricity prices with the leadership shown by Premier Campbell Newman and this side of the House. It is no secret that in the past five years of the Labor government we had power prices rising by something like 83 per cent, and I can recall Premier Beattie making the claim in the House that he would personally save each household across the state $150 on their power bill. What an absolute shemozzle that turned out to be. Contrast that quite clearly with the role that this government has adopted and the role this government sees in assisting people throughout the state to cope with their rising electricity bills. We have a vision for this state based upon the people of Queensland being important and, with them, growing Queensland to develop our economy and also their relationships. The government has taken strong and firm steps in relation to power prices. We have put in place a root-and-branch analysis of the exact causes of power price increases, and we are working through a litany of issues and resolutions to assure a strong and effective domestic and commercial future for all Queenslanders. We have reduced the 44c feed-in tariff to 8c, given that that feed-in tariff of 44c will cost this state $3.3 billion by 2028. I make the point that there is one very clear step that can now be taken by the Australian federal government and the Australian federal parliament, and that is to abolish the carbon tax and save up to $177.40 per annum on the average domestic power bill right across Queensland and, indeed, right across this great nation of ours. We have led a sector-wide program to ensure that reform does occur, and we need the help of every senator in this state—LNP, Labor, Greens, Independent—and we are calling upon every senator to make certain they do achieve that outcome. Prime Minister Gillard had no mandate to impose the carbon tax; Tony Abbott has a mandate to repeal it. The Senate has an obligation to follow the mandate given to the government in Canberra and do exactly that. Sale of Public Assets Dr DOUGLAS: My question is to the Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning. Minister, the state government owns an 812-square-metre block of land in an unlimited height designated area in central Surfers Paradise bordered by Peninsular Drive and Ferny Avenue. Gold Coast City Council documents reveal that the government will accept $1 million for the block as it is presently designated for car parking community purposes. Valuation of the block, one with unlimited height in central Surfers Paradise, irrespective of its present use— Madam SPEAKER: Member for Gaven, I am going to stop you. The preamble to the question is too long. I ask you to put a question to the minister. Dr DOUGLAS: Minister, how does the government allow such a sale, as it would falsely affect unimproved capital values in the area, bringing them down and thereby reducing the rates of the properties? It will mean the people of Queensland are $2 million worse off.
Speaker’s Ruling, Question Out of Order Madam SPEAKER: I am going to rule that question out of order. It is too long and the preamble is too long. Outback Queensland, Tourism Mr JOHNSON: My question is directed to the honourable Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Small Business and the Commonwealth Games. Can the minister please update the House on the strength of the tourism industry across the best part of Queensland: outback Queensland?
3886 Questions Without Notice 19 Nov 2013
Mrs STUCKEY: Can I give a big ‘cooee’ to the member for Gregory, because on the weekend at Mount Isa I can tell you that there was plenty of that happening. What an amazing advocate he is for the region that he loves. I hope that he will be able to give me one back a little later. It was an absolute honour to be amongst friends for the 2013 outback awards in that great city which turns 90 in February: of course I speak of Mount Isa. There was a record of over 240 operators there on Saturday night who descended upon that city to celebrate tourism excellence amongst their peers, and I have to say that some 40 were turned away. There were nine councils there represented too, which shows you the strength, courage and pride of the people who live in this great region. I would like to place on record my congratulations to the 19 winners, including four Hall of Fame winners who were announced on the night. Composition was fierce, but the enthusiasm was even higher. The outback has been fast to embrace this government’s DestinationQ initiatives, but I guess it is not really surprising that they would after the many, many years of neglect by Labor of the tourism industry and people of the outback. Comments were made by a number of them over the weekend that the can-do government has done more for tourism in the outback than Labor did in over a decade. There were 22 proud representatives from the outback who flocked to Cairns to celebrate the very first DestinationQ forum, and they impressed a number of the other regions with their pride and boldness—not to mention their striking red shirts. This year on the Gold Coast they were not to be outdone, and over 20 turned out for that second forum. Earlier this year I launched the Outback Promise campaign—part of the Eventures campaign— which promotes the magnificent rugged beauty and exquisite, unique destinations that are scattered throughout the outback. I am pleased to say that 25,000 people took up the pledge and kept their promise to travel to the outback. Many like me followed through and have visited more than once. Six hundred thousand people a week are receiving an outback message image and travel suggestion as a result of this. As we celebrate tourism throughout our great state there are awards and people are being recognised in every single destination, culminating this Friday evening with the gala awards here in Brisbane where our industry has plenty to celebrate thanks to this can-do government.
Sale of Public Assets Mr KNUTH: My question without notice is to the Treasurer. Will the minister guarantee that the $1.3 million they obtained from the sale of the Mareeba TAFE college will be kept and used to fund programs directly in the Tablelands? Mr NICHOLLS: I thank the member for the question. I am pleased to hear the member’s absolute interest in education and all matters relating to TAFE. Of course, this government made a commitment to the people of Queensland that we would concentrate on delivering front-line services, including particularly vocational education and training services. As a result of that, the Minister for Education has championed the reforms and changes that will be made to the VET sector, including freeing up the delivery of those services to improve productivity and to improve outcomes. No longer will we have the moribund system that existed under Labor. We will in fact have a system that delivers to employers properly trained employees with all of the requisite certificates. I say to the member for Dalrymple that we will continue to provide the necessary levels of support to our colleges. We will also be looking to engage the private sector to deliver those services. This is nothing new. Indeed, the education minister has already spoken about opening up the sector to contestability to provide the education that students want and that employers require in a timely and efficient manner. I have no doubt that any funds that are released as a result of these projects will be used to support the ongoing delivery of services in the VET sector throughout Queensland. We will continue to do that. This is a substantial amount of reform that is necessary to make sure we are providing students and future employees with the skills that employers want well into the future. It is important when we look at these sorts of things that we also look at other people’s views in relation to selling state owned assets. I know that those opposite have often come in here quite het up about the potential to sell things as a result of recommendations made in the Commission of Audit report. We are now seeing a complete change in attitude in some sections of the Labor Party. In fact, I see that my ideological comrade, Paul Howes from the Australian Workers Union, has said not only that the knee-jerk reaction of old Labor, which is lost in the past, should be ignored. I read in the
19 Nov 2013 Questions Without Notice 3887
Australian on the weekend that he has also said that the Labor Party should get out of the way and get on with selling Medicare. We should not live in the past; we should get on and look at how we deliver services. It is not a monopoly. It has no public good. There are funds that can be released and we can reinvest in the delivery of services. It would be good if members of Labor and the member for Dalrymple took some heart from what Mr Howes said, because that would allow us to do things like put in the additional $42 million in funding, offering Queenslanders more opportunity to gain certificate III qualifications. We will be delivering. (Time expired)
Sale of Public Assets Mr DILLAWAY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. I refer to Labor’s decisions to recycle candidates such as Kerry Shine and possibly Grace Grace and Cameron Dick, and I ask: given that these Labor identities voted to privatise our rail, our ports and our forests without any mandate from Queenslanders, can the minister advise if the future of our free public hospitals could be at risk from Labor’s unfinished privatisation agenda? Madam SPEAKER: Member for Bulimba, aspects of that question are out of order and aspects are in order. I ask you to reword the question so that it is pertinent to the minister’s portfolio. Mr DILLAWAY: Given Labor’s past record of privatising assets such as rail, ports and forests without any mandate from Queenslanders, can the minister advise if the future of our free public hospitals could be at risk if Labor were elected?
Speaker’s Ruling, Question Out of Order Madam SPEAKER: Member for Bulimba, good try but that is a hypothetical and I rule it out of order.
Political Donations Ms TRAD: My question without notice is to the honourable the Premier. Will the Premier advise the House whether he discussed electoral campaign support for the next state election with Sibelco representatives when he attended the Rowland Global Access launch, hosted by the Queensland Treasurer, on Monday, 11 November this year? Mr NEWMAN: It was a delight indeed to attend the launch of Rowland Global Access, which is doing amazing things. It is a Queensland founded company that has steadily expanded over the last few years and now has Australia-wide coverage and is also providing services to its customers on the world stage. The Treasurer and I are always delighted to support Queensland businesses that are doing a great job—that are stepping up to the plate and taking on interstate competition. I think that is the important thing here. It is the case that there were many people there from what we could call the ‘top end of town’. We have heard in the past the member for South Brisbane rail against the top end of town. If memory serves me correctly, we have often heard interjections or even speeches where the member for South Brisbane has purported to be anti the top end of town and believes that big business, or maybe any sort of business, is something one should not associate with. Having heard the honourable the Attorney-General today, we now know very clearly—we will remind her—that the member for South Brisbane has clear interest in the performance of the top end of town. The member for South Brisbane clearly stands to financially gain from the top end of town performing well. I think that is good. It is about time she put away class warfare and the politics of Labor going back to the 1950s— Ms Trad interjected. Mr NEWMAN: It is good that we now know that the member— Ms Trad: So what about electoral support from Sibelco, Premier? That is the question. Mr NEWMAN: I am happy to answer the question. I am getting there. I am looking at the clock and I see that I have plenty of time to finish my answer. It is clear today that the member for South Brisbane actually does support the top end of town, so all of the class warfare and the 1950s rhetoric of the Labor Party is only so much window-dressing. No doubt she learned it from Meredith Burgmann when she went down for her study tour about a decade ago.
3888 Questions Without Notice 19 Nov 2013
We still do not have an answer for what the Labor Party did in return for the Obeid donation of $5,000. We have not had an answer to that. What happened at Ergon? How is it that Ergon employed Direct Health Solutions? Who made the phone call suggesting that the Obeids should get in the door of Ergon? We do not know. In short, did I talk to Sibelco about election funding or support? The answer is no.
Mapoon Mr KEMPTON: I have an unquestionable question. My question without notice is to the Minister for Housing and Public Works. Will the minister please update the House on the outcome of his recent trip to the Indigenous community of Mapoon and advise what steps the government is taking to help ensure the town has a viable future? Mr MANDER: I thank the member for Cook for his question. He is undoubtedly one of the most enthusiastic advocates for Indigenous communities that this House has seen for some time. I had the great privilege to go to Mapoon last Friday with my ministerial colleague Minister Dickson. In the 12 months I have been a minister—12 months today, by the way—I have had the privilege of visiting seven Indigenous communities. Mapoon was the seventh. We had good reason to be there last Friday, because the weekend just gone was a weekend of both commemoration and celebration for the Mapoon community. Fifty years ago last Friday, a very dark chapter of Queensland’s history took place. The residents of the Mapoon community were forcibly removed from their settlement and dispersed right across the country, with many going to New Mapoon. In fact, in the very end, because some did not go willingly, their houses were actually burned down. We cannot change the past, but we can help reshape the future. I was proud to be there on Friday, with my ministerial colleague Minister Dickson, to announce that the Newman government has committed $2 million to build five additional houses in the Mapoon community. We are doing this not so much because there is an overcrowding issue in Mapoon, as there is in many other Indigenous communities; we are doing this so that those who want to come back to Mapoon—and many are coming back—have a place to go to. These houses are in addition to the six additional homes that we are already building in the Mapoon community under the NPARIH scheme, and this was very welcomed. We arrived in Mapoon in pouring rain—torrential rain actually. It was a very difficult journey on that dirt road for an hour and a half going in and out of the potholes. Although the environment was very damp, the enthusiasm was not. It was great to see so many people there from not just Mapoon but also neighbouring Indigenous communities who came along to show their support for the district. Mayor Peter Guivarra is a very good leader and a well-respected leader by his community. They were very enthusiastic of course about the festival for the weekend but particularly moved by the fact that the Newman government is committed to providing infrastructure to these Indigenous communities. It was a very moving ceremony. People who were there at the time of being forced off were commemorating that moment and celebrating the fact that Mapoon has a very bright future and the Newman government is committed to helping it. (Time expired)
Walton Construction, Collapse Mr WELLINGTON: My question is to the Minister for Housing and Public Works. I understand the collapse of Walton Construction company has left over $27 million owing to Queenslanders, and I ask: what is the government doing in partnership with the federal government to take cooperative action in relation to the Walton Construction company collapse and amending relevant legislation to better protect small business families in Queensland? Mr MANDER: I thank the member for his question. This is now, I think, the third question that the member has asked me about the Walton collapse. As he well knows, I have met with those who were affected by this—builders, subcontractors—who unfortunately are the victims of a financial collapse. From what we can make out, the Walton group was the victim, if you like, of bad investments made down south. However, that does not help the subcontractors here who are looking for some way of receiving their funds. I met with a delegation and that was a very good meeting. It was good to hear some of the frustrations they have and some of the journey so far. Of course, they want government to do something.
19 Nov 2013 Questions Without Notice 3889
Most of the issues that revolve around this collapse are federal issues. They are ASIC issues. I made a commitment at that meeting and I have written to Senator Sinodinos, the responsible federal minister, to ask him to do what he can to ensure that there are appropriate investigations into that collapse. It is my understanding that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission recently announced that it would investigate Walton for alleged breaches of the Corporations Act and trading while insolvent. I can report that on 7 November 2013 Craig Walton, director of Walton Construction Pty Ltd, was excluded from holding a contractor’s licence and on the same day the BSA cancelled the licence of Walton Construction Pty Ltd. The BSA is also currently investigating allegations that Peloton Builders, set up by Mr Walton, is a phoenix company. As I said, it is very important that we do what we can to protect the payment of subcontractors. The government has a number of ways of doing this. I am currently reviewing BCIPA, the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act, because, as I think I have mentioned in this House before, it has had some unintended consequences. I am looking to bring that amendment legislation before the House in the new year. I am very keen to ensure that we can secure the payments of subcontractors. To answer the question in short for the member for Nicklin, I am doing what I can do that is in my control. I have advocated for the cause of these subcontractors to the federal government and we are hoping that in the future justice will be done.
Education and Training, School Leavers Ms BATES: My question without notice is to the Minister for Education, Training and Employment. Can the minister please update the House about any opportunities available for year 12 school leavers to undertake training next year? Mr LANGBROEK: I thank the honourable member for the question. I know of her interest for all of the students in her electorate, whether they are in state schools or non-state schools. It is a very important question because it is a very important part of my portfolio. The title of ‘Minister for Education, Training and Employment’ is something that the Premier deliberately did to bring the three sectors together. Instead of the ‘training’ sector being an add-on, as it was under the previous government when very little attention was paid to it, it is a deliberate strategy to tie in with the Premier’s message that we are trying to turbo-charge the Queensland economy. That happens through more participation leading to more productivity, and this means that we can get students who may in the past not have been necessarily able to participate because of the challenge that they were facing post school into training, and that will of course lead to more productivity in our economy which will of course lead to a better result for all of us. We want to increase workforce participation and boost productivity, and that is how we are going to achieve the two fours that we have heard so much about over the last year and a half—the four per cent unemployment rate by 2018 and a growing four-pillar economy. We have done this throughout the portfolio. In terms of the Indigenous sector, Closing the Gap was really only about schools. Our plan, Solid Partners Solid Futures, is about tying early childhood with schooling into training and then of course into employment, because it is between those sectors that often people would fall through the cracks. Under Labor, the core of the system had not changed for decades. There had been a multitude of reviews into training. All they did was invent initiatives that were bolted on to a stagnant, ageing core. So we had a lumbering Frankenstein of a system, and I am sure that honourable members would say that they are quite confused about the training system in that they do not understand the differences between TAFE, which of course is the public sector provider, and private RTOs. It is important for us to make sure we work together to have students who are finishing year 12 get into training as quickly as they can so that they can get into a real job as quickly as they can. That is why Assistant Minister Rice, the member for Mount Coot-tha, and I have undertaken to fix this sector. That is why last week I was thrilled to visit Kawana state high school with the member for Kawana, the Attorney-General, to announce the year 12 fee-free training guarantee. These students can access fee-free apprenticeships and traineeships in high-demand industries under both our state government’s certificate III guarantee and the User Choice Program from 1 January 2014. It is available for the calendar year after they finish year 12. We do not see training as an end in itself— unlike those opposite—and we do not have to pander to the antiquated, self-serving interests of the unions in implementing sound policy. (Time expired)
3890 Questions Without Notice 19 Nov 2013
Public Service, Jobs Mrs SCOTT: My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier confirm that the total number of full-time government jobs lost since the LNP came to power, including in government owned corporations, has now reached at least 17,000 workers? Mr NEWMAN: I do not have a precise figure in front of me today, so I cannot confirm that. I simply say this: it is very clear that the Labor Party had a plan to see 43,000 people leave the Queensland Public Service. Those opposite can hoot and toot and deny it all they like, but they had a plan. It was there in the files of government all ready to go, and we know what happened after the 2009 election. After saying that nothing would be sold, it was then sold. After saying that there would be a fuel subsidy, there was no fuel subsidy. We know that they had a redundancy program going themselves. They were paying money for public servants to leave the Department of Transport and Main Roads, but the numbers were going up because of their poor and reckless financial management. That is what was going on. A government member: Hopeless! Mr NEWMAN: They were hopeless. They were clearly going to then sack 43,000 in the biggest bloodbath in Australian government history of all time. That is clearly what was going to happen. What I have said on this matter I really can only repeat again. We said that there was a downsizing task of 14,000. If the numbers— Mr Mulherin interjected. Mr NEWMAN: They are so rude. They asked the question. They could at least listen to the answer. Maybe they would learn something one time. I want to be open and accountable. I want to answer their questions, but they do not want to hear the answers. It is so sad that they do not want to hear the truth. We are doing this to sort out the financial mess that they created. The big task where 14,000 jobs were shed has been done. That is over. It is now a matter for the organisation to go forward in the way that I said earlier. We are reforming the Queensland Public Service. We are making it work better. We are changing the culture. We are trying to focus on better delivery of infrastructure, better planning—and I have talked about some of those things today—and we want to serve the people of Queensland. That is what it is all about. But I make the observation today—and they are ducking the question—that one of the biggest groups that has been against the things that we have had to do was the Together union and Mr Alex Scott. I am advised—and this could be misinformation—and I ask the question rhetorically today: is the Together union downsizing by 25 per cent at headquarters? Is it the case that they were trying to get people to go voluntarily, but they could not so now they are forcing people out the door, even the people who are close supporters of Alex Scott? Well, well! A union forcing people out the door to make budget! (Time expired) North Queensland, Waterways Mr TROUT: My question without notice is to the Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection. Can the minister outline how the Newman government is acting on requests from North Queenslanders to make their waterways safer? Mr POWELL: The Newman government is committed to revitalising front-line services. That includes our EHP rangers on the front line getting the balance right between public safety and conservation. We have been rolling out our four crocodile management plans. The rangers have been reinvigorated. They have removed 35 crocodiles from North Queensland waters this year—my apologies, 34 from North Queensland and one from the Mary River. It was great to be in the Barron River electorate with the member 10 days ago when we announced that, alongside EHP rangers, we have appointed the Dawul Wuru Indigenous Corporation to give us that extra capacity to implement that proactive removal zone from Trinity Inlet, from Chinaman’s Creek all the way through to Ellis Beach. This is about delivering for the people of North Queensland, who for too long received a deaf ear from the Labor Party. We have listened. We are acting and we are delivering. Madam SPEAKER: The time for questions has expired.
19 Nov 2013 Matters of Public Interest 3891
SPEAKER’S STATEMENT
School Group Tours Madam SPEAKER: Members, I wish to acknowledge the schools visiting today: St Bernard State School in the electorate of Beaudesert and Goodna State School in the electorate of Bundamba.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST
Darra-Springfield Railway Line; Newman Government, Performance Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.02 am): Before I formally commence my matter of public interest, I would like to announce good news for the people of South-East Queensland. On Monday, 2 December, the Darra-Springfield railway line will be complete. It will be up and running, built by a Labor government. This is fantastic news for people living in that western corridor. It will mean that there will be consistent services stopping at all stations between Springfield central and the Brisbane CBD. There will be services every six to 12 minutes in the morning peak and every 12 minutes in the afternoon peak. I am also advised that there will be consistent 30-minute departures Monday to Friday off peak and on Saturdays and services every hour from 7 am and every half an hour from approximately 10 am to 10.30 pm each Sunday. This railway line was about a Labor government looking to the future. It was about planning for the south-east and the growth that we have seen out at Springfield. I am also very pleased that the member for Bundamba and I have been invited to attend the official opening on Sunday, 1 December. I am quite sure that this is great news for those people living in that Springfield area—the residents of Camira, Ellen Grove, Forest Lake and Richlands. The opening of this corridor sees the completion of years of detailed planning. This is great news and it is very pleasing for me as I was the transport minister over the last year of the Bligh government and I was intimately involved in this project. This is a great railway extension. It is much needed. It was visionary planning for the future and I am quite sure that all the residents will be very pleased when it is up and running on Monday, 2 December. I listened with keen interest when the Premier spoke earlier in answer to a question asked very clearly by the member for Woodridge about how many jobs have been lost under this government. We all recall before the election the Premier stating very clearly that the Public Service had nothing to fear. At the time it was a very clear commitment by the Premier. Now, when you see the total number of jobs that have gone over the different portfolios and you take into account those job losses from government owned corporations, we are talking about approximately 17,000 people who have lost their jobs since this government came to office. Seventeen thousand people is a lot. It means that when we come up to Christmas next month there will be families who are facing a very bleak Christmas. These job losses also put pressure on families to do the things that other families perhaps take for granted and that is celebrate with family and friends and be able to enjoy the holidays and the festive season. The other matter that I am very concerned about is the cost of living. This government made a very firm commitment in its pledge to Queenslanders that it would lower the cost of living. In fact, we have seen quite the opposite. Under this government, we have seen the cost of living spiralling out of control. People across Queensland are very concerned about the cost of their electricity bills. Their electricity bills have increased over $250 a year and this is making it very difficult for families to make ends meet. This issue was put in very clear perspective for me when I attended the Glenala State High School graduation just last Friday. The school captain, Filipo, who has done a tremendous job over the last year, talked about how his family had made many sacrifices for him to reach his achievements at the school. That really impressed upon me that it is the basic things that matter in people’s lives. Filipo said that he would like to thank his mother in particular for making sure that the family always had food on the table. A lot of families across Queensland will not be celebrating Christmas to the extent that perhaps those in this House will be coming up to the festive season. When we think about it, there is nothing more important than for families to be able to provide for
3892 Matters of Public Interest 19 Nov 2013
each other, to make sure that there is food there, to make sure that they have shelter and to make sure that someone in the family unit has a good-quality, decent job. What we have seen from this government is that it has ripped those jobs away from those families and that is making it very difficult for them to make ends meet when we come up to the Christmas period. As I look back over the year in review, what also stands out very clearly is the stripping away of workers’ rights across this state. I have said time and time again in this House that there is nothing more important than the dignity of work and there is nothing more important than families being able to have a job. I have never seen so many rallies outside Parliament House. People are upset with the direction— Mr Cripps: You have. Ms PALASZCZUK: Not since the Joh Bjelke-Petersen era. Today, we will see another rally out here at 5.30, once again about this government changing the industrial relations structure here in Queensland, stripping away people’s hard fought rights—hard fought rights that they have fought for not just for decades but for centuries. They have been fighting to make sure that they get good pay— Mr BERRY: I rise to a point of order. That is a matter for debate for today. I do not know that the opposition leader— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! What reference is ruled anticipation? Mr BERRY: We have the industrial relations bill on today and the Leader of the Opposition has forecast that there is going to be a rally outside. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Resume your seat. Ms PALASZCZUK: The member for Ipswich does not like talk of a rally. No, he does not like it. Perhaps there are going to be a lot of people from Ipswich coming down to raise their voices. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been keeping my comments very broad, because it is about what this government is doing in relation to stripping away people’s hard fought right to have a decent wage for a decent day’s work. There is nothing more fundamental than that. Once again, nothing was said before the election—absolutely nothing at all. We have seen the attacks by this government on fundamental core service delivery. Not once before the election was anything said about over 4,000 health workers being sacked. As I travel around the state everyone is making it very clear to me that the health services in the regions are suffering. They are suffering because a Health minister and a government are ripping out the funds and not delivering the services to the communities that they need the most. How can we forget what the education minister has done in relation to schools across our state. We have seen schools being axed and families torn apart and upset about the direction of this government when not once before the election did they talk about closing down schools in local communities. Then they released graphs that clearly showed that in those areas where they were looking at closing down some of the schools there was actually a forecast increase in growth in the coming years which would mean that the government would have to look at once again rebuilding those schools. We could go on and on, but the main issue that I raise here today is the list of broken promises by this government. They went to the election promising to lower the cost of living and keep people in the dignity of work. They have lied to the people of Queensland on many occasions and broken that trust. If we look back at the year, I will not even recap what the member for Redlands did because it is embarrassing, on the member for Ipswich West who says he is always happy to be known as a Stalinist or the member for Currumbin, the tourist minister, who encouraged everybody to take holidays in Queensland then went overseas on her own personal holiday. Then we have a Premier who actually made the most astonishing comment that, reflecting back, he enjoyed his time as Lord Mayor more than his time as Premier. I think that about sums it up. In conclusion, I think Queenslanders will be very disappointed at the direction that they have seen the government take over the last 12 months. It has not been a government that has been deliberately setting a course for Queenslanders into the future, it has been a government that has talked a lot about visions and 30-year plans, and we have not seen any further details in relation to that. What we are seeing is families out there that are hurting, families that are not able to make ends meet; a government that constantly undermines workers in this state, stripping away their rights,
19 Nov 2013 Matters of Public Interest 3893
stripping away their jobs. That is not what Queenslanders voted for. Come the next election I am quite sure that Queenslanders on more than one occasion will be prepared to send this government a very clear message that it is not good enough.
Ipswich Electorate, Education Mr BERRY (Ipswich—LNP) (11.12 am): Recently I visited each and every school in Ipswich, the Bremer State High School and all the state schools including special schools. My conversations with the principals were constructive and informative. These fact-finding conversations sometimes involved other members of staff and I thank them for participating. Without singling out any particular school, I had very fruitful discussions with Principal Bruce Grigg of the Ipswich Special School and a number of his staff. I thank them for that contribution. I also went to another special school where matters of behaviour and discipline were discussed, as well as a lot of other matters that concerned my knowing what is happening in my electorate. I would like to thank Mr Andrew Thompson for his insights into how he deals with behaviour change. In fact, I have another meeting with him very shortly to discuss those in further detail. Not for one minute am I suggesting that I know everything about state schools or what strategies work or do not work in changing behaviours in young people, but I feel I have a grasp at least of what is happening in my electorate. It is stating the obvious that our children are the future. It therefore follows that one of the most important, if not the most important, resource is the building of our state for the future by providing for our children and in particular their education. It follows that education is one of the most important pillars on which our children will be the leaders to whom we will hand over the baton progressively. If it is accepted that these premises are valid then it logically follows that controlling behaviour and discipline are one of the plinths upon which the education pillar will stand. At the outset I wish to extend to principals and teachers with whom I met my sincere thanks for giving of their time. The breadth and the depth of the discussion concerned not only discipline within our schools but also matters influencing teaching of our young people as well as the corresponding ability for them to learn. On that point I make reference to submission 19 to the Education (Strengthening Discipline in State Schools) Amendment Act, as it is now proclaimed, that referred to autistic spectrum disorder, or ASD as it is commonly referred to. It really was an insight into what is happening. It is not uncommon for ASD to be prevalent in our schools. Clearly, as education was discussed in the Queensland Plan as being one of those vital ingredients of our state, it is one of the things that we will need to provide for as an extra resource to our principals and teachers in ensuring that these people are specially cared for. In nearly all the primary schools I visited, ASD certainly was a factor. Things like children coming to school without having breakfast, toilet training and so forth are some difficulties that need to be addressed. We cannot always be asking our principals, teachers, teachers’ aides and other staff to do what really are matters of parenting. The germination of giving greater autonomy to principals lies with the Queensland Secondary Principals’ Association, which is the peak body representing its members. They ought to be acknowledged, and I do acknowledge them today, for the contribution they made in putting forward the variations needed for discipline. Discipline is really all about changing behaviour. There are many ways to do it. Principals and teachers are professional people who are armed with the knowledge and the resources to be able to best manage that role. The schools in the electorate of Ipswich are in good hands. It is acknowledged that discipline is a complex issue. It is a desire of principals and teachers to bring about a system where children go through the school experience and come out as productive members of society. There are always comments about how we are best able to do that. I put on record my sincere thanks to the principals and staff who saw me, allowing me to become better informed as to what is happening in my electorate.
Springwood Electorate, Education Mr GRANT (Springwood—LNP) (11.18 am): One of the themes that emerged very strongly during the recent Queensland Plan summit was the absolute centrality of education to a positive and vibrant future for this state. It came up again and again and Premier Newman expressed what we were all feeling when he said that he was excited that everyone was talking about education but also that there was an overwhelming sense that there is much more to do over the next 30 years in so many areas on this issue.
3894 Matters of Public Interest 19 Nov 2013
Education is such an important arena and throughout this year we have taken the opportunity to examine how government can make positive changes. Amongst other things we have done this by listening to school principals. They said many things, but in particular they have said that red tape is a problem when trying to manage behavioural issues in a timely and efficient way. We have already implemented a practical response, which I believe is having a positive and ongoing benefit in our schools. Before I speak further to that I would just like to say that one of the very great privileges that many of us enjoy is the opportunity to visit the great schools in our electorates. I know that in my electorate of Springwood I have often been invited to attend events or assemblies that acknowledge student achievement. These are generally very happy occasions when the school and the community come together to celebrate their wonderful successes. However, as I speak with people in schools, especially those in administration, it is abundantly clear that there are times when student behaviour has a very negative impact on the school community. I am not going to single out any student by giving here an example of antisocial or unacceptable behaviour, but there is no doubt that problems that are present in the wider community, such as violence, bullying, harassment and vandalism, just to a name a few, are also present in our schools. Sadly, on occasions parents also cause protracted challenges for school administration. The challenge that we expect our schools to meet is to provide the physical and emotional safety that is essential for learning to take place. We have to ensure that our school culture supports student connectedness to the school, their family and community and that the class environment supports those students who turn up on time and ready to learn. We know that learning cannot properly take place in an environment that is chaotic, where students feel unsafe or alienated. Therefore, when we identify students with complex problems whose continued attendance at school has a negative impact on the school culture, on their fellow students and on the teacher’s ability to meet the teaching and learning needs of their classes we must act, and we have. Students who do not comply with expectations not only fail to achieve their own potential but also, through their negative and dangerous behaviour and attitudes, inhibit the learning of their peers and this is simply not fair. It is not fair on the majority of students who obey the rules and who apply themselves. What has the Newman government done? We have given school principals the power to exclude students, the power to suspend students and the power to drag recalcitrant children into school on a Saturday morning as they choose to discipline them. The Newman government’s holistic approach to education is about creating the right conditions for effective teaching and learning to occur. We are moving in the right direction with the devolution of responsibilities to the local level, to school principals and to the schools themselves.
Vines Creek Bridges Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11.21 am): The twin bridges that span Vines Creek en route to the Mackay Harbour are absolutely vital for Mackay’s continuing economic prosperity. Harbour Road is a key route that carries road traffic to the port of Mackay and marina complex. It is also the main link from the CBD to the suburb of Slade Point. The Newman government’s port strategy recently identified the port of Mackay as one of its five priority development areas, so the route over Vines Creek will be even more important in the future than it is today. However, there is a problem. A couple of weeks ago, traffic restrictions were introduced on the bridges that place that port strategy at risk. One lane on each of the bridges has been closed and speed restricted to reduce the load on the bridges. This is causing congestion and longer travel time for commuters and for traffic freight to and from the harbour. The restrictions are a response to structural problems. Engineering tests confirm that concrete pillars that support the bridge have deteriorated, as the Minister for Transport and Main Roads knows well. The minister’s immediate response to this bad news was to blame the previous Labor administration for failing to replace the bridges at some point during the past 20 years. He might have had a point if the department had put the replacement of the bridges forward as a capital works project to the previous government budget process, but it had not. That was not the case. In addition, the issue was never raised with me as the local member of parliament. The first I heard about the erosion of the concrete pillars was when I received an email from the department locally advising me it was affecting repairs that would result in changing traffic conditions. Therefore, the minister must face up to the responsibility that this is a problem and stop the blame game. He really has to accept that if he wants to avoid harming Mackay’s economy into the future and realise the port strategy vision he has to find a solution, and quickly. There is a solution
19 Nov 2013 Matters of Public Interest 3895
open to him that will simultaneously strengthen North Mackay’s flood defences. Last week, I wrote to the minister with a suggestion that will support the expansion of the port of Mackay and plug the gap in the levy that runs along the western bank of Vines Creek. Currently, the bridges are below the height of the levy and if they were replaced with bridges at the same height as the levy it would provide increased flood immunity to the suburb of North Mackay and its residents. I have called upon the minister to immediately allocate funding for the planning and design of a replacement of the current bridges and to fund the replacement of the inbound bridge in the 2014-15 budget and the replacement of the out-bound bridge in 2015-16. That would give the minister time to plan ahead. I believe circumstances have provided an opportunity for an infrastructure project that will benefit the city for years to come. This is one of those essential infrastructure problems that occurs from time to time and that governments must address with maturity, speed and common sense. Failure to fund replacement bridges at the earliest opportunity not only will be letting down the people of Mackay and harming the city’s economic prospects, but also will be throwing a spanner in the works of the government’s wider plan for Queensland ports. The minister’s reaction to this problem so far has not been positive. If he continues to shrug his shoulders and point the finger of blame at the previous government, then the people of Mackay will not forgive him.
War in Afghanistan Mr MINNIKIN (Chatsworth—LNP) (11.25 am): Last month marked the 12th anniversary of Operation Slipper, Australia’s military involvement in Afghanistan. As Australian forces prepare to transfer responsibility for security to the Afghan National Army, I rise to reflect upon our nation’s longest ongoing armed conflict and pay my respects to our country’s dedicated military service personnel. September 11, 2001 was a day that forever changed our world. I recall watching the news breaking of the terror attacks on the United States of America and looking on, helplessly, as it became apparent that thousands of people would never be coming home. I think it is safe to say that the events of that day made all of us pull our loved ones a little closer and hold onto our children a little tighter. The terrorist atrocities committed that day took the lives of over 3,000 innocent people; people whose only crime was going into work or boarding an aeroplane. Then there were the emergency service personnel, many of whom perished as they worked tirelessly to find and assist victims of the attacks. While those events were unfolding on the other side of the world, they resonated with people across the globe, representing an assault to the liberties and freedoms we hold so dear. American journalist and author Henry Mencken told us, ‘We must be willing to pay a price for freedom’. That is just what Australia has done in the years since. On 14 September 2001, Australia invoked the ANZUS treaty for the first time since its instatement in 1952, pledging our nation’s support for the Unites States’ efforts to combat international terrorism. From initial deployment to Afghanistan in October 2001 through to mid-2002, Australia’s armed forces played an integral role in deposing the Taliban regime and undertaking reconnaissance and surveillance activities. However, arguably the most difficult of the Australian Defence Force tasks in Afghanistan has been the counterinsurgency undertaken by the Provincial Reconstruction Team in the Urozgan province since 2006. While Australia’s involvement in counterinsurgency has resulted in a steep increase in battlefield casualties, it is our soldiers’ tireless work to mentor the Afghan National Army that has been the key to enabling Australia’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and preparing to transfer security to the Afghan National Army. Throughout their deployment in Afghanistan, Australian soldiers have displayed enormous courage in the face of extreme danger, none more so than Australia’s Victoria Cross recipients, Trooper Mark Donaldson, Corporal Benjamin Roberts-Smith and Corporal Daniel Keighran. On 2 September 2008, Trooper Donaldson was travelling in a combined Australian, United States and Afghan convoy when they were ambushed by enemy forces. In the firefight that ensued, Trooper Donaldson exposed his position, drawing enemy fire away from the wounded troops. Corporal Roberts-Smith displayed similar courage in 2010 when, during a helicopter assault to capture a senior Taliban leader in the Kandahar province, the troops were set upon by machine gun fire from multiple directions. Corporal Roberts-Smith drew enemy fire away from his injured comrades and towards himself, before ultimately storming the enemy’s position and putting an end to the bloodshed. Those are but two examples of battlefield valour and I take this opportunity to recognise the efforts of all our soldiers for their courageous acts on the battlefield.
3896 Matters of Public Interest 19 Nov 2013
Unfortunately, there have also been great sacrifices, no more so than the loss of some of our nation’s finest soldiers. A year ago, I rose in this very House to pay homage to Lance Corporal Stjepan Milosevic, a local husband and father who was killed in action. Unfortunately, his was not an isolated case. A total of forty Australian soldiers have been killed in the line of duty throughout the war in Afghanistan, including sixteen from Queensland. I honour each of them, including Trooper David Pearce, Private Benjamin Ranaudo, Sapper Jacob Daniel Moerland, Sapper Darren James Smith, Private Nathan Bewes, Private Tomas Dale, Private Grant Walter Kirby, Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney, Lance Corporal Andrew Jones, Private Matthew Lambert, Captain Bryce Duffy, Corporal Ashley Birt, Lance Corporal Luke Gavin, Sapper James Thomas Martin, Private Robert Hugh Frederick Poate and Lance Corporal Stjepan Milosevic. These soldiers have paid the ultimate price, sacrificing themselves for the rights and freedoms which we hold so dear and helping to fight the ever-important campaign against international terrorism. To these fallen soldiers and to the service men and women who have served and are currently serving in Afghanistan, I offer our nation’s most solemn and heartfelt thanks and the promise that, in the immortal words of former United States President Ronald Reagan, ‘We will always remember and we will always be proud.’ As the sun sets on our nation’s presence in Afghanistan, no clear victory can be claimed, nor is there any finality to the war on terror. However, we do leave behind an Afghanistan which is undeniably stronger. It is with the utmost reverence and respect that I pay tribute to the efforts of our service men and women to the House.
Newman Government, Performance Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (11.30 am): When the Newman government was elected it promised to be more ‘open and accountable’. By the end of last year a Galaxy poll found that nearly half of Queenslanders believed that this promise had been broken, with nearly two-thirds polled saying the LNP’s ethical behaviour was worse than that of the previous government. If it was bad then, things have since become worse. Since being elected the Premier, the Deputy Premier and the Treasurer have met with casino proponents, such as James Packer’s Crown Resorts, to discuss the granting of new casino licenses without having established any probity process or having appointed a probity adviser. The Treasurer even accepted hospitality from an interested party—the Echo Entertainment Group—while engaging in these discussions. At the estimates hearings this year the Deputy Premier defended the lack of any probity adviser by claiming that no decision had been made about the granting of a new casino licence. However, prior to the estimates hearings the Deputy Premier had said in response to meetings with proponents, ‘I think it’s time we got down to some formal negotiation.’ When referring to a signature development for the Brisbane CBD he said, ‘It’s almost impossible for that sort of development without inclusion of a casino, without involvement of some big players, so we are starting to talk to those players.’ So the first failure of probity was for the Deputy Premier to not appoint a probity adviser before commencing these negotiations. At the end of last month a probity adviser was finally appointed for the redevelopment of the government precinct, including the approval of a casino licence—none other than ‘independent’ Mr Len Scanlan, with BDO appointed as the probity consultant. The same ‘independent’ Len Scanlan was paid by the LNP to do their 2012 state election costings, which resulted in the sacking of around 20,000 workers to meet their so-called funding source of an expenditure cap. The same ‘independent’ Len Scanlan was paid by the LNP to do their 2013 federal election costings. The same ‘independent’ Len Scanlan was the head of internal audit of Queensland Health during the period of the fake Tahitian prince. It is highly questionable for a government to appoint someone who is a known paid consultant for their political party to be a so-called ‘independent’ probity adviser on such a significant decision. The Deputy Premier would have done well to check the Australian National Audit Office better practice guide on probity which lists both ‘secondary employment commitments’ and ‘specific future employment prospects’ as personal interests that may give rise to a conflict of interest. It will be interesting to see if Mr Scanlan is again selected to sign off on the LNP’s election costings at the next state election. Now, let us look at the appointment of the probity consultant business consulting firm BDO. BDO was also paid by the LNP to do its election costings for the Brisbane City Council last year. The same BDO firm also donated $62,850 to the LNP over the last two years, with no donations to the
19 Nov 2013 Matters of Public Interest 3897
ALP over this period. Of these donations from BDO to the LNP, more than $50,000 was received since the second half of last year. This Newman LNP government simply does not understand what probity, proper process or running an honest government is about. It is second nature for this LNP government to engage in cash for access lunches, cash for access deals and, as we will see this week, cash for legislation deals. This is a government that does not govern in the interests of Queenslanders or democracy. While they might not be good at looking out for the interests of Queenslanders, they are good at lining their party’s coffers with a massive $8.5 million collected over the first six months of this year. Many of these same donors are now winning big contracts from this government’s ideological agenda of outsourcing, regardless of whether it saves taxpayers’ money or delivers better outcomes for Queenslanders. Whenever the next election arrives, the choice for Queenslanders will be clear. It will be a choice between a fee-for-service Newman government that governs in the interests of its business donors and mates or a renewed Labor Party that will represent the average Queensland family. Queenslanders deserve answers from this government as to whether they will lift the moratorium on poker machines as part of their plan for more casinos. It is simply not good enough to announce that three new casino licences will be issued without any economic modelling or any detail of what this will mean. For the record, yet again, can I say that, despite rumours started by some to the contrary, I support the proposed $4.2 billion investment for the Aquis integrated resort development in Far North Queensland. I support the potential positive impacts it may have on our region. I am simply asking questions that I think are important to ask. In stark contrast, this government wishes to not answer questions. They need to remember that while they may remain arrogant, they will not always remain so unaccountable and they must respect proper democratic process and proper probity. Queenslanders expect more from their government. Sadly, what we have seen from this LNP is a massive error in judgement on numerous occasions.
Take My Seat Campaign Miss BARTON (Broadwater—LNP) (11.35 am): I rise in this House today to talk about a very important campaign that I recently took part in. On 6 November I took part in the inaugural Gold Coast event that was part of the Take My Seat campaign run by the Spinal Injuries Association. I joined the editor of the Gold Coast Bulletin, Cath Webber, and other Gold Coast identities as we raised funds and awareness for the Spinal Injuries Association—a fantastic organisation that seeks to empower people with spinal cord injuries and help them and their families. The Take My Seat campaign was launched in Townsville in 2011 and has had successful campaigns in Brisbane. I am not the first member of this House to take part. I note that earlier this year the member for Thuringowa took part in the Townsville campaign. Just after I took part, the member for Pine Rivers took part in the Brisbane campaign. I am aware that the Minister for Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services has also taken part in the past. Across Queensland there are nearly 100 people who sustain a spinal cord injury each and every year. There are more than 10,000 Australians who suffer from an SCI. As part of its advocacy work, the Spinal Injuries Association runs the Take My Seat challenge which sees participants spend time in a wheelchair to understand accessibility issues across our community. With my chaperone, John, I rolled through Surfers Paradise, caught a cab, found out about accessible tourist attractions on the Gold Coast, tried to use a shop, tried to use an ATM, grabbed a coffee and grabbed a beer. I have to admit that the challenge really opened my eyes. I do not think any of us can really appreciate just how difficult it is to wheel up the slightest incline of a footpath or how much the slightest gradient can affect the direction and path of a wheelchair. I also had no idea how difficult crossing a road could be. I am actually really lucky that I am not suffering an SCI because I was crossing the road at a zebra crossing and there was a slight lip at the end of this zebra crossing. I did not see it because I was not looking for it and I fell out of the wheelchair. Because I was able to help myself, it was not an issue for me. I am consciously aware that had that happened to my chaperone he would have fallen. There was a car coming towards the zebra crossing. Who knows what might have happened.
3898 Matters of Public Interest 19 Nov 2013
What really shocked me is how inaccessible a lot of aspects of our community are. These things are really simple to fix. I think sometimes we get a bit confused because accessibility does not necessarily mean that we are restricting other people. It just means that we are opening up opportunities to a lot more people. One of the things I did was go into a shop in the Cavill Mall. Getting in was fine. Once I was in it was a little bit more difficult because there were racks everywhere. I might have knocked one or two down as I was trying to get through. When I asked about accessing clothes on the upper levels, the shop assistant’s suggestion was that I could use the escalator. That is not very helpful when we consider that the escalator only goes one way and I was in a wheelchair. My chaperone, John, jokingly said that it might have been a bit of fun coming down. I am not necessarily sure that that is the best way to make shops accessible. The other thing that I was really conscious of was when I went into a convenience store. It was a particularly small convenience store. When I went down one aisle I was blocked at the end by a freezer. When I went to go down the other aisle I was blocked by boxes of excess stock. I said something to the girl about getting down to the end to access the milk. Her suggestion was not to help me or move the stock, but to say, ‘We are overstocked.’ That was it. I was particularly pleased to see that when light rail workers saw some people getting stuck in the light rail works they worked immediately to fix the problems so that other wheelchair users would not have the same problems. I found riding in a cab particularly interesting and very disconcerting because there was not a proper seat. It costs a paraplegic about $5 million for the rest of their lifetime. So I was really pleased to be able to be part of a team that raised about $14,000 just on the Gold Coast alone for the Spinal Injuries Association. I would like to thank those who made donations to my campaign, particularly colleagues of this House. If anyone still wishes to make a donation, feel free to come and see me and I will tell you how you can make a donation to the campaign. The Spinal Injuries Association does great work, and I was very happy to support the association in its campaign.
Gladstone Electorate, Local Service Providers Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (11.40 am): Over many years I have spoken occasionally on the importance of engaging with local service providers in my electorate, and indeed it would be the case in all electorates. We would love to see our local engineers, our engineering firms and our builders utilised as much as possible in programs that benefit our electorate. Again, I raise that issue. We have seen over the last few years considerable development activity and industrial development activity in the electorate of Gladstone, where not only are residents struggling to afford to live in the electorate of Gladstone with the inflated cost of living, particularly rental costs, but also quite a number of local businesses have significantly missed out on the development and the prosperity that that development should bring. Some of the big companies come and they are so keen to get projects underway that they subcontract to a major partner, not the local smaller service providers, and that major partner has contacts outside of our region—if not, often outside of the state—to provide the material and labour for the particular jobs that need to be done. It is my belief that, whether it is the electorate of Gladstone or any other electorate in Queensland, when they are providing the environment, when they are providing all of the aspects of an industrial or other development, they deserve both as individuals and as a community to get some benefit and some significant benefit from the risk and the cost that they carry for that development. In the recent few years one of the greatest impacts was affordable housing. We have seen the ULDA commence in Clinton and there are several others that have been identified in the electorate. One of the most prominent issues is that many of the builders who have come in to do those constructions, particularly the NRAS construction, have not been local builders. We have a wonderful building industry. Local builders in the main are family type organisations. They employ 30, 35 or 40 subcontractors—again, locals. They provide a great service. They build an incredible product and they also offer after-construction service. Their name depends on that product being reliable and also that there is follow-up service, if indeed there are any problems. What we have seen is even the Queensland government—the former government and to a lesser extent the current government—allocate approvals to builders who live out of town and in some instances in Brisbane. But we have had one lot of contracts that have gone to Adelaide, South Australia. Is it because we do not have the builders to do the job? Not at all. Do they do a quality job?
19 Nov 2013 Matters of Public Interest 3899
Absolutely. They need to be considered and not just by having a cursory conversation with local builders to say that consultation or an opportunity to express interest has been afforded to them and then other builders engaged. There is a round of NRAS contracts that are going to be made available in the very near future, and I would ask this government to give very careful consideration to ensure that local builders—and in this instance builders in the electorate of Gladstone who live and contribute to the community—are given a very fair opportunity to tender for and be successful in this round of construction. There is a double benefit. It employs local people. It keeps that employment local. It ensures that the investment and the wages paid to those local builders are reinvested locally. It also ensures that the quality product is followed up immediately if there is a failure because the builders are in situ. It also avoids the risk of that investment bubble that occurs when a rash of outside construction companies come in and inflate the price of things like property—their property. They build their spec homes and they are sold, and that creates this price bubble that is avoidable. So I ask the ministers to really consider the ‘buy locally’ principle to give our local builders, our local engineering works and our local employers a fair and reasonable opportunity to be involved in projects that will benefit the local community.
Moggill Electorate, Public Transport Dr FLEGG (Moggill—LNP) (11.45 am): I was very excited to see the government’s new plan released for the combined bus-rail underground for Brisbane. This is only possible because of the financial discipline that this government has imposed on the state. What is most refreshing of all is that people actually believe we will do it, because they have heard empty promises for so long under the Labor Party. The people of Moggill will benefit from this project and also from the Brisbane City Council’s Legacy Way project. But I have to say that there is no question that Moggill residents have been ignored under lengthy Labor administrations at both state and local level. We are not just subjected to one of the state’s most congested major state roads but, despite being many times bigger than the other Brisbane electorates, we do not have a single metre of busway. We have no safe cycle link to Brisbane’s cycle network that will get cyclists out of the way of motorists and out of harm’s way. The only park-and-ride in this entire enormous metropolitan seat is one I got the Labor Party to build some years ago, and we have the embarrassment of dozens of people having to park in the dirt at Grandview Road. The Moggill electorate has the largest communities in South-East Queensland that do not receive any public transport—10,000 people in Karana Downs and Mount Crosby without any public transport. We understand the difficulty of servicing a sparse population, but even those people who want to do the right thing and drive to where they can catch a bus do not have the facilities to do so. We recently also lost the bus service to Upper Brookfield, which is another community that will now have to drive to where they can use public transport. If we look at council roads around Brisbane, such as the extension of Beckett Road, the Go Between Bridge and Waterworks Road, it would be hard to escape the conclusion that we would probably have been better placed if Moggill Road were a council road. We continue to have more development in our area. Houses are popping up like mushrooms around Priors Pocket, Bellbowrie, Moggill and elsewhere in the electorate. There are 35,000 cars a day coming in through Kenmore; an estimate, although there is no official count, of 55,000 cars a day on Moggill Road at Chapel Hill; and 11,000 frustrated bus commuters each day stuck in the traffic. This is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue. People in Moggill do not expect anything special. In fact, they are used to getting nothing. They expect, however, what other people take for granted—that you can hop on a bus and it is not stuck in traffic. Have a look at the bus network around Brisbane. We are the only community that has no access to it. They expect at least a reasonable ability to move on the road, to be able to get their kids to school and go to work without being stuck in the worst congestion driving into Brisbane city. We would ask that the government look at ways to allow residents of this very big part of Brisbane to access Brisbane’s expensive busway network, heavy rail network and cycle network. All Brisbane residents should have the ability to access those.
3900 Matters of Public Interest 19 Nov 2013
When it comes to transport—I drive in it every morning, as my constituents do—we feel like we live in an Amish community because a car is of very little use on that road. You are passed by cyclists and even pedestrians. There is no doubt that the Amish in their horse and cart would move a lot quicker. That is no exaggeration, I can assure the House. Locals understand it is a costly solution to build the Kenmore bypass, but the cost has been overstated to some extent because a lot of the quoted cost would be for much needed upgrades to the Western Freeway to take an interchange. We are certainly not out of kilter with what has been spent on transport in other parts of Brisbane. One way of raising some additional funds would be to sell the unneeded parts of that corridor out to the Warrego Highway. We now have a government that has the vision to fix the problems that have come from the long neglect of the past. That is a good thing for Queensland and we should be able to make this happen now. (Time expired)
Gold Coast City Council, Development Approval Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—UAP) (11.50 am): Today I table the original Supreme Court judgement between Crestden-Gold Coast Commerce Club and the body corporate for Surfers Plaza Resort. Tabled paper: Supreme Court of Queensland judgement in Gold Coast Commerce Club Inc & Anor v Body Corporate for Surfers Plaza Resort Community Titles Scheme 6388 [2008] QSC [4063]. The document speaks for itself. I also table a local area plan of Surfers Paradise for development applications, with ‘X’ marking the sites of buildings with unlimited height and the highest densities that can be built as of right. This is in that zone. Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Surfers Paradise Local Area Plan—LAP Map 25.3—Maximum Building Heights’ [4064]. The critical aspect of the current sale by the state and Gold Coast City Council is that Crestden—now named Redrock and Gersbach—only want the properties revalued at car park value. This is listed in the development approval planning application to the Gold Coast City Council, freely available on the internet. If that property is sold at car park value as city planners under Mayor Tom Tate’s control, this fire sale will devalue properties right across Surfers Paradise at a time when everyone, including investors throughout the nation and lots of people whose only properties are the properties they hold in Surfers Paradise, is looking for an increase to improve their LVRs, or loan to value ratios, which is effectively measuring the equity in their own properties. This is a very significant problem. To give the House an example of going prices in Surfers Paradise, 2 Holborow Avenue, a vacant 680 square metre block in a limited height area—so you cannot build to an unlimited height— further away and with restricted height development, sold for $1.95 million. At 180-184 Ferny Avenue, a 1055 square metre block sold for $1.98 million. That is in the last year. In the lower end of Ferny Avenue a Thrifty Car Rental site totalling 1611 square metres sold for $5.7 million, and it has significant height restrictions with a very old building on it. Therefore, the city council site which is up for sale must be worth $5.7 million at least and the state site between $2.5 and $3 million at a minimum. Gold Coast Mayor, Tom Tate, is a partner in Crestden and got control over a community bowling facility that is on community title land, crippling its 100 per cent privately owned facility and its ability to continue. They then gave them a deal which reduced their debt to zero from $770,000. It saw Crestden as the new owners of the bowling greens and level 2 of Surfers Plaza Resort. The bowling green sits atop three blocks of land now owned by Crestden, the Gold Coast City Council and the state government. The Surfers Paradise Bowls Club had been offered—wait for it—$7 million to $7.5 million in different deals by Sunland for the freehold land it held, separate from the government and the Gold Coast City Council blocks, immediately before the GFC. Immediately before the GFC it was offered $7 million to $7.5 million. Now the mayor claims that he has not participated in this process of council of seeking an approval from the Gold Coast City Council—which he says he has withdrawn from—for a 60-storey tower on this block which sits in front of the Surfers Plaza building atop the bowling greens. Residents and investors in the Surfers Plaza building were told on purchase in 1991 that they would have unrestricted views of a clubhouse, bowling green, restaurants and a large car park on ground level under a raised bowling green development. They will soon possibly have a major building site immediately to their north-east.
19 Nov 2013 Matters of Public Interest 3901
Crestden owns 2,644 square metres of the 6,823-square-metre site, yet the Gold Coast City Council is actually considering this proposal that robbed an elderly community group of its facilities. Crestden Pty Ltd allegedly represented the Gold Coast Commerce Club when taking over the bowls club together with the poker machines on level 2 of the Surfers Plaza Resort. The bulk of the commerce club members allegedly came from backpackers from Mr Tate’s Islander Backpackers Resort and were not part of any active community group. Bowlers were locked out and the club was shut down. They thought the commerce club was to be their saviour. They were excluded totally and their assets taken for a fraction of their true worth. Crestden even operated the car park as a public car pack without a permit. The bowls club was raped and pillaged, yet the same person who did this is the current Gold Coast mayor and a key funder and supporter of local candidates of the LNP. The Gold Coast City Council continues to assess this plan. I now call on the minister to investigate these matters. This development of public land is wrong and far too much has occurred without formal investigation— (Time expired)
Mental Health Mr WOODFORTH (Nudgee—LNP) (11.56 am): I have always believed it is the public’s right to be fully informed. When it comes to health, specifically mental health, I do not feel we are being told the truth, nor taught what could make a difference. It is in the public’s interest to make a fully informed, educated decision, especially when it comes to their health. Last night I asked a professor in mental health what impact he thought chemicals, additives and preservatives had on mental health issues, and he said none. So chemicals, additives and preservatives have no effect on one’s mental health, even though many of these are labelled in the laboratory as neurotoxins. That is not the reason for the explosion in mental health issues—not at all, it seems. That is the message to the public. To my mind, it is a terrible message and an injustice to many people who are looking for what in many cases are simple answers to fix many, but not all, problems. My case in point No. 1 is Jessie Reimers, who emailed me on this subject, stating— Interesting that when I stopped eating processed foods, chemicals, additives, preservatives, sugar, wheat etc and started eating real nourishing food I stopped having constant panic attacks and feeling suicidal/constantly depressed. All I ever heard from Drs/specialists was that my physical and mental symptoms were in my head, that food had nothing to do with it and prescribed me more Zoloft and sleeping pills. The public needs to know this. We need to get these messages out there to help people. Case No. 2 is a personal friend who has a son who was head banging. If only this were to heavy metal music, one might not be so concerned. After a chance conversation with a friend of hers who told her that if she took out just one additive—160B—the child would stop banging his head, guess what? The child stopped. So, no, the child did not have a mental health issue; he had an intolerance to an additive. The public needs to know this. We need to get these messages out there to help people. Case No. 3: in the 1960s Dr Feingold, a paediatrician and allergist considered a pioneer in the fields of allergy and immunology, found that eliminating both salicylates and synthetic food additives from patients’ diets not only eliminated allergic type reactions but also induced behavioural changes in some of their patients. The first clear case for Dr Feingold was an adult patient referred to him for treatment of severe hives way back in 1965. Typical treatments had not worked for her. Dr Feingold placed her on a low-salicylate diet with no synthetic colouring or flavouring. Soon her hives were gone. Ten days later, however, her psychiatrist called Dr Feingold to ask, ‘What did you do to my patient?’ She had been receiving treatment for a personality disorder for years, but in less than two weeks on the diet her behaviour had noticeably improved. As more reports of behavioural improvement came in, Dr Feingold began to use the diet for people, especially children, with behavioural problems as well as allergy and eventually found the diet often worked for children with behavioural problems even without allergy symptoms. The public needs to know this. We need to get these messages out there to help the people. Case No. 4 is a mother who was at her wit’s end with her eight-year-old son. Her boy was easily angered, seemed to deliberately aggravate other children, refused to obey the rules and was having learning difficulties at school. Amongst other things, this was placing a huge strain on her entire family. After only seven days of a change in diet her son’s transformation was incredible. She says that he is so much happier and at ease now. He is calmer and the entire household is a much nicer place for everyone to be around.
3902 Matters of Public Interest 19 Nov 2013
I am moved whenever a parent has the courage to choose self-care over the continuation of invasive, toxic prescription medication for their kids because that is the only true process that can assist healing. That particular mother taught him how each ingredient would give him the energy and nutrients his body truly needed to get well. Now her son calls his new diet his ‘brain food’. We are not educating people on the detail from a young age. We have lost generations of knowledge that was once passed down but now is lost. The majority of our education comes via TV commercials from self-interested companies that day after day are reforming our thinking and our culture. We educate our kids in the three R’s. We teach them to swim, to run and to jump. We teach them everything except the basics of human health and how important it is. Where will we be in 30 years time? We will be where corporate greed takes us, where governments let them and we the people will have knowingly, blindly or stupidly let it happen. I said in my maiden speech in this chamber that I reserve the right to change my mind given better or new information for the greater cowardice is to not do so because of what others may think of me if I do. If we want to truly fix health issues and, importantly, mental health issues, I for one hope that those who feel they cannot change their mind because of what others will think of them will rethink this for the greater good of the people. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! I call the member for Stretton. There are four minutes on the clock.
Oral Health Mrs OSTAPOVITCH (Stretton—LNP) (12.00 pm): I am blessed to have always had healthy teeth, but for hundreds of thousands of Queenslanders this is not the case. Our waiting list for dental care had 112,204 people on it, and I can only imagine that their dental problem got worse with time. After many years of inaction by the previous Labor government, Minister Springborg approved a dental scheme to give those on the waiting list a $750 voucher for, or towards, dental care for qualifying patients. The scheme has helped 50,000 people to address dental problems. The result is that the total number of long-wait dental patients, those waiting two years or more, fell from 62,513 in February to the current figure of just 13,722. As at 30 September, 60,000 vouchers had been issued. Mr Mulherin interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Stretton has the call. Mrs OSTAPOVITCH: May I continue without interruption? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has the call. Mrs OSTAPOVITCH: As at 30 September, 60,000 vouchers had been issued. The overall waiting list has fallen from 112,204 to 59,612. Many have topped up the voucher with their own money and if a voucher was more than the cost of the treatment, the remainder has been cycled back into the scheme for others. The scheme cost $186 million with $8 million from the federal government. I have had many letters thanking us for what those who were suffering on waiting lists consider great compassion and kindness. I will quote from one of those letters. It states— Good afternoon to my favourite representative! Words are a poor representation of my extreme gratitude for your efforts on my behalf. My dental problem has been expertly solved due to your response to a request for assistance. I humbly beseech you to accept praise for your help. This is as good as life can get. My best wishes for a continued Parliamentary career rewarded with increased successes. While it is indeed wonderful to receive an email that confirms that, as members of parliament, we are making a difference in people’s lives, I must forward this praise to Minister Springborg. I would also like to praise the Tzu Chi Association for their own actions to address dental health. Twice a year for the last 10 years they have helped hundreds of people all over the state to address dental health. A couple of months ago I had the privilege to accompany Patrick Lieu and his team of volunteer dentists at the QEII Hospital where they provided over 100 new immigrants with dental care. Meanwhile, back at their meeting hall, they had set up approximately another 10 professional dental stations where they administered dentistry to disadvantaged people in the community. While this is all wonderful news for those with dental problems, I would like to point out that prevention is better than cure. I urge Queenslanders to take better care of their teeth and especially appeal to parents to care more about their kids and what they feed them. Without any doubt, sugary foods and especially soft drink and juices are a major contributing factor to tooth decay. Awareness needs to increase that what we choose to eat or feed our kids makes a difference with regard to
Public Service and Other Legislation (Civil Liability) Amendment 19 Nov 2013 3903 Bill healthy teeth and bodies and even behaviour, as mentioned by the member for Nudgee. This was brought to my attention when I was told that when Africans come to this country they generally have amazing, white, healthy teeth. It astounded me that after just a few years of eating an Australian diet their teeth deteriorated at an alarming rate. So please think about what you put into your mouth. If nothing else, just rinse your mouth after eating and drinking. Hopefully that will help keep Queenslanders smiling. (Time expired) Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time for matters of public interest has expired.
PUBLIC SERVICE AND OTHER LEGISLATION (CIVIL LIABILITY) AMENDMENT BILL
Introduction Hon. CKT NEWMAN (Ashgrove—LNP) (Premier) (12.04 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Public Service Act 2008 and the Police Service Administration Act 1990 to provide for protection of Public Service employees, police officers and other persons in particular circumstances relating to engaging in conduct in an official capacity. I table the bill and the explanatory notes. I nominate the Finance and Administration Committee to consider the bill. Tabled paper: Public Service and Other Legislation (Civil Liability) Amendment Bill 2013 [4065]. Tabled paper: Public Service and Other Legislation (Civil Liability) Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes [4066]. I am pleased to introduce the Public Service and Other Legislation (Civil Liability) Amendment Bill 2013. The bill amends one act within my portfolio, the Public Service Act 2008. It also amends the Police Service Administration Act 1990, which sits within the portfolio of the Minister for Police and Community Safety. This bill reflects our focus on supporting our hardworking public servants to do their jobs. Prior to last year’s election I gave a commitment to our dedicated police officers that I would initiate a review of the civil protection laws to ensure they can get on with the job of protecting our community. At present, there is a limited scheme of protection for police officers. For example, they are currently indemnified if they act in good faith and without gross negligence in circumstances that involve assisting people with illness or injury in emergency situations. Police perform a critical role in ensuring safe communities across Queensland. In the often highly complex situations they respond to, and despite performing their roles professionally and in good faith, the nature of their business means there are occasional incidents that cause injury to people or damage to property. The potential consequences that flow to the individual officer as a result of these unfortunate occurrences—the threat of civil liability—place unnecessary pressure on officers and has the potential to impact decision making, especially in high-pressure, operational situations. This can ultimately reduce the level of service that police are willing and able to provide to our community. This risk of reduced service because of concerns of liability is not limited to police officers. It is also an issue for public servants performing a range of roles, including ambulance and fire service officers, teachers, doctors and nurses. The amendments to the Police Service Administration Act 1990 and the Public Service Act 2008 will address this situation by providing our hardworking public servants with legislative immunity against civil liability. Liability will instead lie with the state. By transferring liability to the state, it ensures that anyone who suffers an injury or loss as a result of action by a state or Queensland Police Service employee still has the opportunity to seek recompense appropriate to the circumstances. Our public servants and police officers should know the government and the community values their service, and this is reflected through this bill by providing an appropriate level of protection from civil liability. But let me be clear: this is not about reducing responsibility and accountability of public servants; it is about ensuring that we have a framework in place that supports our people when they do the jobs we ask of them and do them to an appropriate standard. For this reason, the bill proposes that the state has a right to recover contributions from employees who are subsequently found to have engaged in conduct other than in good faith and where it amounts to gross negligence.
3904 Penalties and Sentences (Indexation) Amendment Bill 19 Nov 2013
The amendments proposed in this bill provide a level of certainty that does not currently exist. At present there are a range of policies and procedures that offer forms of indemnity—assistance with legal costs and penalties—that employees have to apply for after civil proceedings have been brought against them. What we are putting forward gives public servants and police officers certainty that we are going to support them from the outset for the ultimate benefit of the people and communities of Queensland. I commend the bill to the House.
First Reading Hon. CKT NEWMAN (Ashgrove—LNP) (Premier) (12.08 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Question put—That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time.
Referral to the Finance and Administration Committee Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! In accordance with standing order 131, the bill is now referred to the Finance and Administration Committee.
PENALTIES AND SENTENCES (INDEXATION) AMENDMENT BILL
Introduction Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (12.10 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 for particular purposes. I now table the bill and the explanatory notes, and I nominate the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee to consider the bill. Tabled paper: Penalties and Sentences (Indexation) Amendment Bill 2013 [4067]. Tabled paper: Penalties and Sentences (Indexation) Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes [4068]. I am pleased to introduce the Penalties and Sentences (Indexation) Amendment Bill 2013. The bill proposes amendments to the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 to introduce a legislative mechanism to index the value of the penalty unit. The penalty unit is the basic measure for most fines and penalty infringement notices—commonly called tickets—and is prescribed in section 5 of the Penalties and Sentences Act as $110 for most state laws. When legislation creates offences with a monetary penalty, the penalty is usually expressed as a certain number of penalty units. For example, the fine for an offence may be prescribed in the legislation as two penalty units. This would equate to a $220 fine. The penalty for an offence is set at a level that reflects the seriousness of the offence and provides the level of deterrence or punishment that is considered necessary. Unlike Victoria, the Northern Territory and Tasmania, the value of the penalty unit in Queensland is not indexed. Without periodic increases in the value of the penalty unit, the intended deterrent or punishment effect of monetary penalties reduces. Since 2000 the penalty unit value has been increased twice: firstly in 2009, when the penalty unit value was increased from $75 to $100; and again in 2012, when the penalty unit value was increased from $100 to $110. The bill introduces a legislative mechanism to index the penalty unit value to ensure that the deterrent and punishment effect of fines and penalty infringement notices is maintained and provides certainty in relation to future increases. The legislative mechanism in the bill applies to the penalty unit value applicable to: most state laws; the laws of local governments not listed in schedule 2 of the Penalties and Sentences Regulation 2009; and infringement notices issued under most state laws and the laws of local governments not listed in schedule 2 of the Penalties and Sentences Regulation. However, the indexation mechanism will not apply to the penalty unit value for offences in the Work, Health and Safety Act 2011, the Electrical Safety Act 2002, the Safety in Recreational Water Activities Act 2011 or to the penalty unit value applicable to the laws of the 12 local governments listed in schedule 2 of the Penalties and Sentences Regulation.
19 Nov 2013 Agricultural College Amendment Bill 3905
The bill provides that the penalty unit value may be increased by 3.5% per annum or other rate determined by the Treasurer. This other rate is referred to in the bill as the percentage change, and the percentage change has to be published in the Government gazette by 31 March in the year that the penalty unit value is to be changed. The penalty unit amount with the percentage change applied will be rounded down to the nearest coinable amount, that is, the nearest five cents, and then prescribed in a regulation. The requirement for the Treasurer to gazette the percentage change by a specific date ensures that departments, agencies and local governments are provided with adequate indicative notification of the new penalty unit value before it is prescribed in the regulation, provides a public record around the degree of the increase in the penalty unit value and is consistent with the approach adopted in Victoria, which also indexes the penalty unit by a figure other than the Consumer Price Index. Because the penalty unit is used to determine the monetary value of a penalty for an offence, the regulation will form an important, publically accessible historical record of changes in the penalty unit value. In accordance with the bill, when the prescribed penalty unit value is applied to determine the dollar amount of a fine enforced through the issuing of a ticket, the amount of the ticket will be rounded down to the nearest whole dollar. The bill specifically provides that a regulation may only prescribe a value for a penalty unit once for a financial year but does not require that the penalty unit value must be increased annually. This means that the government has the discretion to determine each year whether an increase will be applied. Parliament maintains ultimate oversight of the penalty unit value because a regulation has to prescribe the penalty unit value upon application of the 3.5% or percentage change. I want to place on record my thanks to the Hon. David Crisafulli, Minister for Local Government, Community Recovery and Resilience and member for Mundingburra, for his assistance in consulting with the Local Government Association of Queensland on the application of the indexation mechanism to the laws made by local governments. I commend the bill to the House.
First Reading Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (12.14 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Question put—That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time.
Referral to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! In accordance with standing order 131, the bill is now referred to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee.
AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE AMENDMENT BILL
Introduction Hon. JJ McVEIGH (Toowoomba South—LNP) (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (12.15 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Agricultural College Act 2005 to rename the Australian Agricultural College Corporation and to establish a new governing board for the corporation, and to make consequential or minor amendments to the legislation stated in schedule 1 for related purposes. I table the bill and explanatory notes. I nominate the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee to consider the bill. Tabled paper: Agricultural College Amendment Bill 2013 [4069]. Tabled paper: Agricultural College Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes [4070]. I am very pleased to introduce the Agricultural College Amendment Bill 2013. This bill provides for amendments to the Agricultural College Act 2005 to establish a new governing board for the Australian Agricultural College Corporation and also to rename the corporation. This bill makes significant amendments to the corporate structure of the Australian Agricultural College Corporation. Reform of the corporation is essential if it is to continue to be a provider of vocational education and training to regional Queensland into the future.
3906 Agricultural College Amendment Bill 19 Nov 2013
The corporation provides training and education services to agricultural and pastoral industries through industry vocational training at six regional centres and educational training through its residential colleges at Emerald and Longreach. The vocational training component of the corporation accounts for approximately 73 per cent of training and, even though it is currently profitable, it will not be sustainable in the long term due to the delivery costs of training under the current structure. The residential colleges have consistently and unfortunately operated at a loss. Ernst & Young was commissioned in 2012 to undertake a thorough review of the college corporation. I tabled a summary of their review findings in August 2012. Ernst & Young found areas of financial and management deficiencies that were systemically contributing to the college’s serious operational losses. Overall it was found that service delivery of the college was not meeting the requirements of industry or students. This bill demonstrates the government’s commitment to ensuring that the high-quality agricultural training and vocational education required is available in Queensland to develop our skilled agricultural workers of the future. This bill restructures the corporation from a corporation sole to a statutory body so that a more effective management and decision-making structure is in place. The implementation of a statutory body will improve the financial sustainability of the corporation through the adoption of performance management, financial reporting and strategic business planning. To reflect the new structure, the corporation will also be renamed the Queensland Agricultural Training Colleges. Of critical importance is the replacement of the current advisory board arrangements under the act with a governing board for the statutory body. This governing board will have direct responsibility for the financial and administrative management of the statutory body. Most importantly, the new board will ensure a greater alignment of college services with the needs of students and our regional industries. The bill introduces requirements for the board to develop and implement strategic and operational business plans for the entire organisation. The residential colleges—Emerald Agricultural College and Longreach Pastoral College—are being restructured so that they become more viable. It is imperative that these colleges have the ability to realign their services to the requirements of their students and to the agricultural and pastoral sectors that they serve. The legislation will also formalise the local college board arrangements I put in place earlier this year at Emerald and Longreach. These boards will have a critical role in assisting the corporation to identify and address the training needs of those industry sectors. They will also be tasked with improving the decision making and performance of each residential college with the oversight, of course, of the governing board. The college directors appointed this year will also have formalised roles under the act to manage the day-to-day activities of their college. Skilling the future generations of rural and regional Queensland is an essential component of the government’s commitment to agriculture as one of the four pillars of the Queensland economy and, of course, for our plan to double food production by 2040. The passage of this bill in early 2014 is therefore essential if our agricultural colleges are to have the management and financial standing to be part of the vocational education and training sector into the future. I place on record my appreciation to the member for Gregory for his guidance both now and into the future, no doubt, for those two residential colleges in particular. I commend the bill to the House.
First Reading Hon. JJ McVEIGH (Toowoomba South—LNP) (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (12.20 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Question put—That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time.
Referral to the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! In accordance with standing order 131, the bill is now referred to the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee.
19 Nov 2013 Biosecurity Bill 3907
BIOSECURITY BILL
Message from Governor Hon. JJ McVEIGH (Toowoomba South—LNP) (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (12.20 pm): I present a message from Her Excellency the Governor. The Deputy Speaker read the following message— MESSAGE
BIOSECURITY BILL 2013
Constitution of Queensland 2001, section 68
I, PENELOPE ANNE WENSLEY AC, Governor, recommend to the Legislative Assembly a Bill intituled— A Bill for an Act to provide for a comprehensive biosecurity framework to manage the impacts of animal and plant diseases and pests in a timely and effective way and ensure the safety and quality of animal feed, fertilisers and other agricultural inputs, to repeal the Agricultural Standards Act 1994, the Apiaries Act 1982, the Diseases in Timber Act 1975, the Exotic Diseases in Animals Act 1981, the Plant Protection Act 1989 and the Stock Act 1915, to amend the Chemical Usage (Agricultural and Veterinary) Control Act 1988, the Fisheries Act 1994 and the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Rout Management) Act 2002, and to make minor and consequential amendments of the Acts mentioned in schedule 4.
(Sgd)
GOVERNOR
Date: 19 NOV 2013 Tabled paper: Message, dated 19 November 2013, from Her Excellency the Governor, recommending the Biosecurity Bill 2013 [4071].
Introduction Hon. JJ McVEIGH (Toowoomba South—LNP) (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (12.22 pm): I present a bill for an act to provide for a comprehensive biosecurity framework to manage the impacts of animal and plant diseases and pests in a timely and effective way and ensure the safety and quality of animal feed, fertilisers and other agricultural inputs, to repeal the Agricultural Standards Act 1994, the Apiaries Act 1982, the Diseases in Timber Act 1975, the Exotic Diseases in Animals Act 1981, the Plant Protection Act 1989 and the Stock Act 1915, to amend the Chemical Usage (Agricultural and Veterinary) Control Act 1988, the Fisheries Act 1994 and the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002, and to make minor and consequential amendments of the acts mentioned in schedule 4. I table the bill and the explanatory notes. I nominate the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee to consider the bill. Tabled paper: Biosecurity Bill 2013 [4072]. Tabled paper: Biosecurity Bill 2013, explanatory notes [4073]. I am pleased to introduce the Biosecurity Bill 2013. Queensland’s current disjointed biosecurity legislation was developed in response to specific events since the Stock Act was first introduced in 1915. As a result, it includes overlapping and inconsistent approaches as well as obscure and obsolete provisions. The legislation is difficult for stakeholders to navigate and results in inefficient administration. It is largely reactive and prescriptive and lacks the flexibility to enable efficient responses to Queensland’s emerging biosecurity risks. When I released the agriculture strategy earlier this year I outlined the Newman government’s vision and framework for growth for this sector and an action plan of 60 initiatives across government. Biosecurity is both one of the major challenges and one of the opportunities facing the sector. Improving Queensland’s biosecurity preparedness, through implementing new systems to more effectively manage pest and disease threats and having significantly enhanced biosecurity legislation to support this, was a key initiative under the agriculture strategy. As honourable members know, maintaining market access and developing new markets for our world-class, disease-free products is vital to both our pro-growth aspirations and the competitiveness of our agricultural industries. Queensland continues to be challenged by new and re-emerging pests and diseases—more so than any other state or territory. Our close proximity to Papua New Guinea and South-East Asia combined with the diversity of environment and climatic conditions provide ideal conditions for a vast number of exotic pests and diseases to potentially establish.
3908 Biosecurity Bill 19 Nov 2013
Pest and disease threats to Queensland are expected to become more frequent and diverse due to: increases in tourism and business travel; expansion in the trade of animals and animal products; an increased volume, range and geographic distribution of plant species traded; as well as entry of pests and diseases through natural routes. At the same time, analytical methods are constantly becoming more sophisticated, and overseas markets are demanding improved quality and timeliness of information to prove freedom from pests, diseases and contaminants. Without reform, current legislation will impede growth to this core pillar of our economy and delay achievement of our goal of doubling agricultural production at the farm gate by 2040. This bill will deliver a single, cohesive legislative framework with proportionate powers and flexibility to respond in a timely and effective way to emergency events and ongoing animal and plant diseases and pests. This will help to reduce impacts on agricultural industries, companion and leisure animals, the natural and built environment, tourism and lifestyle industries and potential disease transfer between animals and humans. It will also manage risks of biological, chemical and physical contaminants associated with carriers such as livestock, plants, machinery, animal feed and fertilisers. The bill demonstrates the government’s commitment to cutting red tape by repealing six biosecurity related acts and amending a number of other acts. Excluding the 112 pages of repeals, savings, transitional clauses and clauses amending other acts, the bill is 425 pages in length—a more than 20 per cent page count reduction compared to the corresponding provisions in the current legislation. In terms of reducing red tape, a new permits scheme will simplify, consolidate and remove some of the current permits required under existing biosecurity legislation. Other red-tape-reduction proposals include generic rather than narrow biosecurity certificates, increasing the duration of authorisations to three years and rationalising the number of different fees by over 50 per cent. The proposed legislation has a strong focus on requiring all stakeholders to take an active role in managing and responding to biosecurity risks. The general biosecurity obligation will result in more equitable sharing of the responsibility for prevention and response activities by those who contribute to the risk or benefit from its management. It is general because biosecurity has broadened from its historical focus on dealing with a narrow range of pests and diseases to a more diverse range of risks threatening industries, the environment, broad economic interests, human health and social amenity. The bill establishes obligations for animal disease tracing purposes. These include registration of properties where animals are kept, the use of devices to identify specific animals, including cattle, sheep and goats, and recording the movement of animals. Owners of hobby farms and livestock pet owners will need to register their property, but they will be exempt from the fee where they meet taxation rulings of not carrying out a primary production business. The bill also establishes obligations for dealing with prohibited and restricted biosecurity matter, including notification of incidents that may indicate the presence of a biosecurity threat. For example, owners would need to report issues such as mouth or feet blisters on designated animals, abnormally high mortality or morbidity rates, or a sudden, unexpected fall in production in plants and animals. To protect our industries, the bill also prohibits the feeding of animal matter to designated animals that might spread disease, such as mad cow disease, unless specific exemptions are met. The legislation also provides more scope to manage emergency biosecurity events where serious or irreversible damage is possible but the scientific knowledge may be incomplete. The bill adopts the precautionary principle that will allow swift but time limited action to be taken to manage these emergency events. This acknowledges that the costs of not taking action to minimise a risk, such as a highly infectious zoonotic disease, which is a disease that can be transmitted between animals and humans, can be more significant than the cost of taking early and definitive action that subsequently proves to be unnecessary. The Newman government is focused on customer service and supporting an efficient, resilient and profitable agriculture sector by fostering innovation and flexibility. Revitalising front-line services to deliver on-ground solutions and outcomes for our producers in key areas such as wild dog management, tick control and crop protection are all key initiatives under the agriculture strategy. The bill provides comprehensive regulatory powers and tools, including emergency powers, emergency biosecurity orders, emergency prohibited matter declarations, movement control orders, biosecurity zones and biosecurity programs. These powers can be tailored, and therefore proportionate, to the unique nature and tactical challenges of addressing individual biosecurity threats. This will enhance capabilities and flexibility for front-line staff, provide for more cost-effective responses and reduce
19 Nov 2013 Biosecurity Bill 3909
burdens for stakeholders while ensuring the rights and liberties of individuals are safeguarded. For example, biosecurity zones will be used to manage, reduce or eradicate pests or diseases such as fire ants, cattle ticks and banana diseases across the whole or part of the state. A biosecurity zone will establish how biosecurity matter must be managed, including details for eradication, movement of biosecurity matter into or out of or within a biosecurity zone, as well as outlining how inspection, testing and records are undertaken and kept. Under the proposed changes, a surveillance program can be authorised to determine the extent of the presence of a biosecurity threat, monitor the effects of responses to a biosecurity risk, confirm the absence of a biosecurity threat or monitor compliance with the bill. A prevention and control program may be authorised to prevent the entry, establishment or spread of a biosecurity threat in an area or to manage, control or eradicate such a biosecurity threat. Enhanced transparency and sound management of biosecurity risks will be achieved through the bill by requiring decision-making processes to consider evidence of the likelihood and consequences of risks. The bill also provides for the minister or chief executive to enter into government-industry agreements similar to current national agreements such as the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed or National Environmental Biosecurity Response Agreement. These agreements between the state and any one or more other jurisdictions, local governments, industry bodies or natural resource management bodies will allow for a more coordinated response and equitable cost sharing related to managing a biosecurity event. Aligning responses with national and international market access obligations will provide confidence that the requirements of our customers are being met. Contestability and flexibility for the private sector will also be fostered as part of the changes through compliance agreements and industry accreditation schemes which leverage industry knowledge about best practice risk management for its particular circumstances. Compliance agreements will enable a person to self-manage risks associated with their business activities. For example, a business moving animals or plants from a pest or disease affected area to a ‘clean’ area could voluntarily enter into a compliance agreement if they did not want to transport them via, or unload them for treatment at, a quarantine point. Under the agreement, they would address the biosecurity risks before consignment, minimising business disruption, transport costs and delays in getting the animals or plants to market. A business could self-certify that live plants such as banana tissue culture planting material was produced and transported in a manner that minimised the spread of regulated pests. A cattle producer could issue a certificate at their own premises to demonstrate compliance with cattle tick requirements without treatment at a cattle tick clearing facility. The bill provides for the state to enter into interstate certification assurance agreements with another state to recognise biosecurity certificates. These certificates would enable businesses, where appropriate, to self-certify that the relevant quarantine requirements for its destination have been met. Approved auditors, including suitably qualified individuals in the private sector, will audit businesses that operate under a compliance agreement or an accreditation scheme at regular intervals. The bill continues to highlight the key role that local governments play in managing invasive plants and invasive animals in their area, as they did under the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002. Local governments will be required to undertake pest management planning in consultation with key stakeholders, including relevant state agencies. The ability for local governments to implement concurrent biosecurity management plans will provide greater flexibility and the current requirement for departmental or ministerial approval of the plan will be removed to reduce unnecessary red tape. The introduction of an enhanced set of regulatory tools, including prevention and control or surveillance programs for invasive plants and animals, will provide local government with flexibility and improved capacity to address local pest management issues. Additional regulatory tools such as codes of practice, guidelines and biosecurity zones will also support local government compliance activities. Another key issue addressed under this legislation is compensation. The compensation provisions in the bill will provide a standard, equitable and transparent approach across all parties taking into account the types of loss that can result from compulsory acquisition, damage or destruction of a person’s property from a biosecurity response. The bill seeks to balance the rights of the individual against potential state liability for compensation claims and adopts the principle that parties should bear their proportionate responsibility for the mitigation of biosecurity risks and share of
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3910 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill the cost of biosecurity responses. Compensation arrangements provided in the bill include scheme compensation, which covers responses taken under the national cost-sharing arrangements between governments and industry. State based statutory compensation is not payable where reimbursement arrangements under government and industry agreements are triggered. A third type of compensation for loss arising from an accidental, negligent or unlawful act or omission may be claimed and ordered in a court. To ensure this legislation continues to be relevant and effective, the proposed changes will require the bill to be reviewed within the first five years of commencement. The subordinate legislation to be developed will be extensive and must address industry-specific biosecurity needs. For example, it must include details of prohibited and restricted matter and permits for dealing with them; property registration; animal identification and tracing systems for livestock; biosecurity zones; various codes of practice; local government obligations, including payments for the Land Protection Fund; accreditation, auditors and auditing; and fees and charges. Stakeholders from peak industry bodies, production industries, natural resource management groups, local government and relevant Queensland and national government agencies will continue to be engaged extensively to develop these instruments and the regulatory impact statement for the subordinate legislation. This process is expected to take 12 months from the passage of the bill in the parliament. The can-do Newman government recognises the importance of the agriculture sector and we will work hand in hand with producers across Queensland to maintain the confidence of our markets and to seize the unprecedented opportunities that the coming decade presents. This bill will deliver the framework that maintains that confidence through timely and effective responses across the full range of biosecurity risks, including emergency events and ongoing animal and pest diseases that would concern Queensland. I commend the bill to the House.
First Reading Hon. JJ McVEIGH (Toowoomba South—LNP) (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (12.39 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Question put—That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time.
Referral to the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! In accordance with standing order 131, the bill is now referred to the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee.
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (FAIR WORK ACT HARMONISATION NO. 2) AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Resumed from 17 October (see p. 3425).
Second Reading Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (12.40 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Industrial Relations (Fair Work Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill is to amend the Industrial Relations Act 1999 to create a reformed industrial relations framework for the Queensland jurisdiction. The bill also includes amendments to the Health and Hospital Boards Act 2011, the Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990 and the Superannuation (State Public Sector) Regulation 2006. The bill reforms the industrial relations framework for Queensland and responds to the recommendations of the Queensland Commission of Audit and the needs of the Blueprint for Better Healthcare in Queensland. In particular, recommendation 130 of the Commission of Audit notes the importance of updating the Industrial Relations Act 1999 to ensure that it is modern, flexible and relevant to the public sector environment.
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3911 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
I thank the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee for its consideration of the Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. I note its recommendations and I now table the government’s response to those recommendations. Tabled paper: Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee: Report No. 45—Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, government response [4074]. I note that the committee tabled its report on the bill on 14 November 2013 and has recommended that the bill be passed. The government accepts that recommendation. The committee has made a further two recommendations, both of which are accepted. Recommendation 2 proposes that proposed section 149(3) in clause 28 of the bill be amended so that the conciliating member is required to give a copy of the conciliation report to all parties as well as the vice-president within 14 days after the conciliation period for the matter ends. This recommendation is accepted. It is a sensible suggestion and will improve the operation of the bill. Recommendation 3 proposes that consideration be given to specific matters affected by transitional provisions of the bill when the ministerial request to commence award modernisation is made to the Queensland Industrial Relation Commission under proposed section 140C in clause 16 of the bill. Key examples of such matters are the work undertaken on behalf of the auxiliary firefighters and the work undertaken by and on behalf of the Torres Strait Islander police support officers. In both cases a significant amount of work was undertaken by these parties on the relevant awards for these employees. The transitional provisions in the bill allow that all consideration of existing awards will be delayed and undertaken as part of the award modernisation process. These are important provisions as they will allow for a full and detailed examination of all awards to be conducted as part of a complete process. However, they mean that some matters that have been under consideration recently will be directly affected. Although those matters will be able to be brought forward and considered as part of the award modernisation process, I accept that these matters deserve special attention. As such, I accept the committee recommendation and consideration will be given to prioritising matters affected by the transitional provisions in the bill in drafting the request to the vice-president of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission to commence the award modernisation process. I note that the committee report contains dissenting reports from the member for Rockhampton and the member for Nicklin. These reports raise the same issues that have been previously addressed in the explanatory notes tabled with the bill, in the initial briefing to the committee, in my department’s report on submissions on the bill and in responses given during the committee hearing. The member for Rockhampton complained about this bill being rushed through the parliament. Colleagues, it was so rushed that they had six weeks from the time of its introduction to this sitting week. The bill was so rushed that the committee was able to have public hearings and 35 submitters were able to contribute to the committee process—six weeks and still the opposition thinks that it is a rushed process. I remember back to the halcyon days of the former parliament and the Bligh government when time after time there was complaint about the number of years it took for the government to work through some legislative changes. It was far too slow, far more haphazard and lacked conviction through the process. We are unapologetic about being a can-do government that is interested in getting on with the job of getting the state back on track, because we believe that Queensland is a great state with great opportunities. The member for Nicklin also included a dissenting report. How refreshing! He has sided with the Labor opposition—the party that once upon a time wanted to make him a shadow minister. The member for Nicklin complains about the process in the legislation that sets the parameters for the QIRC to undertake the award modernisation process. In response I say to the member for Nicklin that the award modernisation process is a one-off process mirroring the approach adopted federally in 2008 by the Rudd Labor government. The request is necessary to provide direction and guidance about the required time frames for the completion of the award modernisation process. The scope of the request is limited by the permitted matters and non-allowable matters as contained in the legislation. I am sorry to say that the member for Nicklin does not seem to understand industrial relations matters at all. It is time to move on. This bill achieves important reform to Queensland’s industrial relations framework to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of employers and employees operating within the state’s industrial relations jurisdiction. This bill ensures that the framework is modernised and relevant. The framework will create an industrial relations system in Queensland that focuses on the employment relationship,
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3912 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill provides a fair safety net of enforceable employment conditions and promotes efficiency, innovation and productivity improvement in the workplace. The framework is essential to address inefficiencies in the negotiation of employment agreements and to provide a modern, flexible and responsive industrial relations system. I will be moving some amendments during the consideration in detail. I have already mentioned that I propose to introduce an amendment to proposed section 149(3) in clause 28 of the bill so that the conciliating member is required to give a copy of the conciliation report to all parties as well as the vice-president within 14 days after the conciliation period for the matter ends. I also propose to introduce further amendments to invest the President of the Industrial Court and Queensland Industrial Relations Commission with the administrative responsibility for granting approval of leave for the vice-president and a number of minor technical and consequential amendments raised by the Queensland Office of Parliamentary Counsel or the department that further clarify and strengthen existing provisions and rectify some of the drafting irregularities. I commend the bill to the House. Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Leader of the Opposition) (12.46 pm): I rise to make a contribution to this important debate today that we are going to be experiencing on the Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. Let me make it very clear from the outset that the opposition will oppose this legislation. It is yet again another callous attack by this LNP government on decent, hardworking Queenslanders who dedicate their working lives to serving our community throughout this state. This legislation is an affront to decency. It attacks the basic conditions of Queensland employees. It attacks the core rights of employees to negotiate collectively and it will go down in history as Campbell Newman’s Work Choices for Queensland. It attacks our proud history. It tramples over rights and principles that were hard fought, that wise and decent men and women struggled for. It attacks more than a century of that struggle that had a common goal: that every Queenslander should receive a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, that every Queenslander should have the dignity of job security, that every Queenslander should have the dignity of safety in the workplace, that the hard fought right to a safe and fair workplace should be honoured and upheld, that the principles fought for by wise and brave Queenslanders starting in the 1890s and continuing over the following decades should be retained and honoured in this state, not destroyed, stripped away and trampled upon. This legislation is the latest in a long line of attacks by this LNP government. I want to touch on the drastic and draconian action that the Newman government has taken and how it impacts on the day-to-day lives of unions and their members. The full impact of this latest legislation is how it interacts with the range of changes made by this government in its relentless march to disempower every Queensland worker. Since the LNP government came to power, there has been a parade of legislative changes to industrial relations, each more drastic than the last. Last year, we saw the first steps with the government attacking the power of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. As I have said before, we all know that when the LNP want to go after workers their first step is to weaken the independent umpire. They also introduced the requirement for the QIRC to consider the fiscal position of the government in any enterprise bargaining negotiation. That so-called fiscal position, to be presented by the Treasury, is not open to cross-examination and is simply enforced onto negotiations without any consideration of any other factor. The nature of this was shown in the first of these briefings where the then Under Treasurer appeared and read out pages of the Costello interim report. The information that apparently should be used to settle EB negotiations is reading out text from a summary of the so-called independent Costello report. The next step was to destroy job security for the Public Service. With the stroke of a pen in the middle of the night the LNP removed job security that has underwritten modern Public Service practices for decades and that is in addition to the around 70,000 jobs that we now know that the government has slashed, including from government owned corporations. In addition to the pain and suffering caused to those hardworking Queensland workers, they also destroyed the right of those left behind to pick up the pieces. Apart from the obvious and immediate threat to the livelihood of individuals, the greater impact is on the role of the Public Service itself. When public servants are at risk of losing their job without any protections, the impetus for fair and frank advice from the Public Service is destroyed and the constant threat of the axe falling also destroys the economic confidence of thousands of workers. It is just commonsense that when workers are threatened and their job security destroyed they close their wallets and reduce their spending. That impacts on small business, tourism, construction and all other areas of the economy.
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3913 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
Now we do not have time for a full and complete list of the LNP atrocities in the industrial relations area, but along the way they also restructured the QIRC, imposing more restrictions on taking industrial action, gave the minister the power to unilaterally intervene, changed the Labour Day public holiday out of spite and, of course, amongst all of this they also launched an all-out assault on the rights of workers to join unions and take action to pursue their collective interests. The so-called transparency and accountability changes were nothing more than a blatant attack on the rights of unions and their members to honestly and effectively promote the interests of their workers. It is a vicious attack on free speech that strikes at the heart of modern democracy. The changes aim to silence the voice of workers and their representatives by imposing impossible administrative burdens on organisations to exercise their free speech; force burdensome requirements on unions and elected officials, with disclosure requirements far beyond that of even company directors; impose disincentives for union and business members to seek to be involved in senior activities of the organisation; reverse years of established practice to provide fair and free access for workers to join unions and to organise workplaces; make it harder for union representatives to access workers and represent their interests; and empower managers at the expense of input from workers over their roles and conditions. As was made clear during previous debates in this chamber, the legislation is so extreme there is not a similar example of restricting the freedom of industrial relation organisations participating in public and political debates in any other Australian jurisdiction. I challenge the government to show where in the Western world these issues have been trampled upon. Day in day out in this parliament I and the other Labor MPs here have to put up with the LNP continually addressing issues around red tape. They ripped away rights of vulnerable outworkers, environmental protections and the rights of local communities to have a say in planning decisions all under the guise of reducing red tape. Yet when it comes to industrial relations changes we see that it is all about creating red tape for employees. The difference is subtle but vicious. With the industrial relations restrictions red tape is not a side effect of the legislative purpose. With the industrial relations restrictions red tape is the purpose of the legislation. The bill deliberately imposes such burdensome restrictions on industrial organisations to spend the funds of their own organisation that it makes their involvement in public debate and political discussion almost impossible. This stripping of rights is not only harmful because it deliberately restricts the core work of what unions do and why workers choose to join unions in the first place, what makes these changes particularly spiteful and venomous is that it attacks the very workers who strive every day to serve the public interest. Workers in the public sector, whether in an office in the Brisbane CBD, a local hospital, regional police, ambulance or fire station or one of Queensland’s TAFE campuses, they do their work to deliver for their local community. When it is comes to negotiations they tend to be reticent to resort to striking because these core services they provide are crucial to Queenslanders right across the state. The real power those workers had to pursue their rights was to raise their concerns in the public arena and garner public support for their campaigns. Stripping the right of unions to spend the organisation’s own money to raise issues at the core of their members’ interest takes away the main string in their bow and removes the final protection against a government intent on introducing extreme and harsh measures. The practical implications of the legislative changes stem from the definition of political objectives. It is so broad that it encompasses almost everything a union or employer organisation does. It is not confined to donations to political parties or what could be considered political campaigning. For example, if teachers ran a public awareness campaign about the workplace issue of teacher-student ratios it would be considered a political objective. If nurses and allied health professionals produced materials raising awareness of the risk of outsourcing their jobs, it is not treated as a normal workplace issue that obviously affects their job. No, it would be treated as a political objective. If public servants ran a campaign about the removal of job security it would be considered a political objective, even though it goes to the very core of their workplace rights. Likewise for police officers or ambos or firies, who because of their front-line service to our communities are reticent to resort to striking as part of their industrial organisations. This government is telling those Queenslanders in uniform that if they raise a public awareness campaign to get more police, ambulance officers and firefighters in their community they are captured under the provisions of political objectives. The policy position of the LNP government and the Attorney-General is so illogical and nonsensical that it would be funny if it was not dealing with such important issues. It is simply ridiculous that members of unions who choose to join the union, who freely pay their membership
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3914 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill fees and get to vote in union elections, would not support their union standing up for their rights when they are under attack. Members would not think there needs to be a ballot before the union takes action on any issue; they would expect the union to take immediate and strong action when their interests are at stake. Let me be clear: each and every one of these items not only represents damage to decent working people; each and every one of these attacks is another broken promise from this government. This is a Premier who said public servants have nothing to fear from an LNP government. That promise did not amount to much. This is a Premier who promised to govern with dignity, grace and humility but then described sacking government workers in other terms, which is absolutely disgraceful. This is a Premier who rails against red tape, but then imposes so much red tape on employees that it removes their basic rights of collective action and freedom of speech. This is a Premier who promised four per cent unemployment but has delivered jobless figures at global financial crisis levels. Queensland’s unemployment was 5.5 per cent at the 2012 election and now it is 5.9 per cent. At the core of these broken promises and at the core of this government’s agenda in industrial relations is a monumental misunderstanding of the modern industrial relations arena based on a deeply emotional and extreme hatred of workers who stand up for their rights and the unions who represent their members. These severe, unheralded restrictions against employees raising serious matters in the public arena create the platform for why this current legislation is so dangerous and outright harmful to so many employees. The LNP have knee-capped employees’ ability to pursue their interests through the independent umpire. They have placed unheralded barriers to raising their interests in public debate and now they are preventing employees from pursuing their interests through enterprise agreements themselves. Sitting suspended from 1.00 pm to 2.30 pm. Ms PALASZCZUK: Continuing from where I left off prior to the lunch break, I raise specific questions for the Attorney-General about the so-called harmonisation with the Fair Work Act. I know that people from his office and department will be listening to questions put during the debate, so I ask that he address these questions in his reply: if this legislation is about harmonisation with the Fair Work Act, can the Attorney-General please provide the sections of the Fair Work Act that make it illegal for employers to allow payroll deductions for union membership; point to the sections of the Fair Work Act that limit the number and scope of what can be agreed to in the enterprise agreement, to the matters outlined in this legislation; point to the sections of the Fair Work Act that expressly exclude from an agreement training arrangements, workload management, delivery of services or workplace planning; where in the Fair Work Act does it remove the ability of the independent umpire to award interim pay rises; where in the Fair Work Act does it prohibit the independent umpire from granting retrospective pay rises; does the Fair Work Act require a written agreement for employment agreements and where is that contained in this legislation; does the Fair Work Act have no-worse-off protections in awarding pay and conditions to workers and where is that clause in this legislation? The reality is that, in short, all the employee rights contained in the Fair Work Act are out while all the requirements and productivity clauses are in. It certainly is not harmonisation with the Fair Work Act. The Attorney-General’s own departmental officers were frank and honest about this during their public briefing. They confirmed that there are significant and numerous parts of this legislation that are directly inconsistent with the Fair Work Act. In fact, they pointed out that not only are there significant parts of the legislation that are not contained in the federal legislation but also they are not in any other industrial relations system in other states. There are elements that go even further than Work Choices. Once again, we are seeing the LNP rushing through massive changes to industrial relations in an ideological attack that will destroy productive, cooperative, modern industrial relations practices. Mr Bleijie interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: I listened in silence to the Attorney. It would be lovely if he could show the same courtesy. I would expect nothing less from a— Mr Bleijie interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Ruthenberg): Order! The Leader of the Opposition has the floor. Ms PALASZCZUK: They hide behind outrageous suggestions that this is in some way transposing the federal legislation into the Queensland setting. It would be nothing short of misleading to suggest this is the case. The Attorney-General’s own departmental officers pointed out the huge
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3915 Other Legislation Amendment Bill disparities between this legislation and the federal regime. We have an LNP that is determined to pursue its extreme industrial relations agenda, but it does not have the guts to actually tell the electorate—that is, the people of Queensland—that it will do it or even admit what it is doing at the same time that it is doing it. It is beyond the realm of believability that those opposite could seriously claim this legislation is simply bringing the Fair Work Act to Queensland. Those opposite are either kidding themselves or they are deceiving the people of Queensland. There are comprehensive and numerous ways that this legislation is damaging to employees and the system itself. It undermines the very nature of modern industrial relations best practice. At the core of this legislation is the ideological decision to say that enterprise bargaining should not be the pillar of the industrial relations system. Enterprise agreements have been developed and settled as one of the key elements of modern industrial relations and one of the important factors in Australia’s economic reform and prosperity over the past two decades. Without any public discussion and with clearly little consideration or understanding about how this extreme legislation will impact on the system and the economy, the LNP has taken an axe to a fundamental strength of our system. These changes not only will impact front-line workers and their families but also will cause chaos in our industrial relations system for years to come. These fundamental changes reflect the fact that the LNP views industrial relations as an ideological vehicle to attack unions and the values that underpin the broader labour movement. They see industrial relations laws as almost theoretical discussions, rather than something that affects the real men and women who are working to serve the people of Queensland. Let me place on record testimony from the Queensland Nurses Union about the fundamental attack of this legislation. Government members interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: They do not want to hear it, but they are going to hear it again from the Queensland Nurses Union. Beth Mohle states— The bill purports to be ‘harmonising’ with the Fair Work Act 2009. That is not the case. The bill, if it becomes law, will strip away current terms and conditions enjoyed by nurses and midwives in our public health system. The bill will also allow the government, which is also the employer, to directly instruct the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission in relation to so-called modernisation of our awards. The extent to which the minister can direct the QIRC is unprecedented and totally disregards the doctrine of the separation of powers. Mr Bleijie interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: The Attorney-General is laughing. He is not too clear on the separation of powers, is he? He has had a few troubles with that recently. Beth Mohle continues— The bill intends to remove two of the principal objects of the Industrial Relations Act in relation to promoting and facilitating the regulation of employment by awards and agreements, and promoting collective bargaining and establishing the primacy of collective agreements over individual agreements.
The removal of these two objects, along with the 250 pages of amendments that the Industrial Relations Act required to make good the impact of their removal, represents another fundamental breach and that is a breach of our international obligations in relation to labour standards. I particularly refer to article 4 of the international labour standard Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention 1949 No. 98, which is set out in our formal submission. In short, this convention requires the terms and conditions of employment to be regulated by means of collective agreement. That is what this bill is about: overturning a fundamental tenet of modern industrial relations law and best practice—that is, the basic principle that employees have the right to join together to pursue their collective interests. Managing that system through genuine negotiations and agreement is an effective form of management that benefits both employees and their employer—in this case, the government. The legislation is another attack by the LNP on the pay and conditions of workers. This legislation— A government member interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: I hear someone to my left saying it is rubbish. It is not rubbish, and if they had bothered to read the bill they would understand the complexities of it. This legislation will attack hardworking staff and reduce their take-home pay, including that of front-line police, firefighters, ambulance officers, health staff, council workers and teachers. This is not good for their families and it is not good for our local economy. Under the language of ‘award simplification’, the legislation strips a huge number of rights and entitlements from workplace agreements. It will make it harder or impossible to bargain in good faith to maintain or expand many of the features of current enterprise bargaining agreements. Even if parties do come to an agreement, the QIRC would then be required to insist on productivity gains as
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3916 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill a trade-off for any entitlements included in the agreement. For many workers, especially casual and shiftworkers, the penalty rates and allowances that have been hard fought for over many years have become part of their normal expected family income. Drastic changes to those entitlements will have serious ramifications for those families and a flow-on effect for the economy. This is particularly so in regional and provincial areas where the loss of income will have a long-term effect on the whole community. It is important to note that the take-home pay of workers is likely to be reduced. Even under Work Choices, the award simplification process had provision to protect the basic issue of take-home pay. Even that very limited protection does not appear in this bill. I do note that the legislation moves the basic sick leave from eight to 10 days. This is one small benefit, but it should be noted that 10 days sick leave is already standard across most agreements. It certainly does not compensate for the drastic reduction in entitlements that this legislation will bring. As an example of the entitlements to be stripped away, public holidays will lose penalties rates of 2½ times the normal pay. At the same time, managers will be given the power to order a wide range of employees to work on public holidays. This will impact on public servants right across front-line services including police, ambulance officers, firefighters, council and healthcare workers who, by the very nature of their work, need to maintain services on public holidays. The issue of health entitlements is another example of how this LNP government just does not understand how a workplace operates or simply does not care. Two weeks ago we heard what the Minister for Health said in relation to front-line health workers. I quote from a Courier-Mail article, which stated— “I think people would raise their eyebrows around things like a live sewage allowance or a dirty linen entitlement, which people would probably think should be included as a core part of what staff do” ... The minister and the LNP members of the legal affairs committee that considered this bill can cast aspersions with regard to this. However, these are real issues that have a big impact on working people’s lives. The shocking bonus that the LNP wants to strip away is $1.56 for hospital staff who end up dealing with soiled linen. We are not talking about doing the laundry the way you or I might put a load of washing on at home. Let me be clear to those opposite about the real people we are dealing with here and the real work that they do. Industrial relations legislation is not just some theoretical debate. It is about real people going to work, the conditions they work under and the pay they take home to their families at the end of the day. The health staff who are apparently the people receiving excessive bonuses are the orderlies and operational staff who deal with the reality of what happens in hospitals, where patients are very sick and suffer serious injuries. These hardworking men and women clean up after patients who vomit from their treatment, who bleed in their beds, who lose control of their bodies and soil themselves. Patients who suffer shocking accidents have mucus, pus and blood seeping into their sheets. When that happens, it is the orderlies and the cleaners who wash the linen and clean the rooms to provide dignity to patients and to maintain cleanliness and infection control in our hospitals. I know it is not pleasant to have to think about the work that these people do every day in our hospitals right around the state. I know it is not fun to articulate exactly what we are talking about when we say ‘soiled linen’. I would have thought that when we talk about the men and women who do these jobs our first reaction would be to thank them for their service and thank them for the hard work they do each and every day. I certainly did not expect the government’s first response to be to resent giving them $1.56 an hour. As was articulately put during the public hearing on this legislation, chiding these workers for getting around $1.50 for cleaning up human waste is pretty rich coming from committee members who get extra money for sitting on the committee. Let me quote what Ben Swan from the Australian Workers Union said in relation to what the so-called bonus is that they are trying to strip away. Under questioning from the member for Rockhampton, Mr Swan said— It is not a committee allowance, Bill, which I think a lot of my members would be pretty chuffed at obtaining for sitting on their posteriors. Cleaning laundry in a hospital is not like cleaning laundry at home. You are talking about things that are infected with pus, vomit, blood, faeces, urine and all the other things that go on with that. You are talking about linen that on occasion includes discarded needles, some of which may have been exposed to persons with particular infections. This is not giggles sort of scenarios in a hospital environment. These are the people who are doing the most unglamorous work in hospitals who earn, compared to other professionals or other people working in hospitals, nowhere near what they deserve, in my opinion. Taking a $1.50 allowance and converting it to a bonus, as if it is something to be congratulated for, let me tell you I put the challenge out to every member here, please come out with me to one of the hospitals and you can spend a day cleaning linen, you can spend a day wading through other people’s waste in live sewers.
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3917 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
He went on to say— Let us just put a few things into perspective when it comes around to this because it is almost as if the accusation is that these workers are stealing the money—stealing the money! How dare they! To the members of the committee he challenged— Go out and work for it. We had to fight in arbitration cases to win that. And that is when we took the independent umpire out. You go and do your inspections and you show them what the conditions are like. But put yourself in that shoe, that is my challenge to you. So the challenge is there for any member of the committee who wants to go out there and see exactly the kinds of issues we are dealing with here on the floor of this parliament. We are stripping away allowances for people who do really hard work. The legislation drastically reduces the redundancy entitlements for public sector workers. It appears that the government is getting ready for its next round of job cuts. It could also be preparation for mass outsourcing of the health workforce, which would necessarily involve a large number of redundancies. Just to make sure that the people of Queensland know we are not scaremongering, the LNP have actually outlined in their executive notes that this legislation is pursuing the goals of the Costello audit and the LNP’s health blueprint, both of which are premised on the mass privatisation of many health services. The legislation excludes redundancies from any enterprise agreements. Further, it sets the minimum redundancy at 16 weeks. The LNP is trying to claim that that is only the base level and the current ministerial directive provides for more generous redundancy payments. But under questioning during the departmental briefing, the department confirmed that removing those entitlements from a legally enforceable enterprise agreement and relying solely on a ministerial directive means the government—in this case the Attorney—can unilaterally change the directive and reduce redundancy entitlements. The legislation also gives the Director-General of Queensland Health the power to issue directives that unilaterally override any other industrial instruments. That is an outrageous overreach and is very dangerous for a harmonious department and fair outcomes for workers. The legislation also effectively strips workers of the right to strike. The time frames imposed mean that workers cannot begin negotiating new agreements until close to the expiration of their current EBA. There are new strict impositions on how long negotiations can occur before the matter is forced to the commission for arbitration. Of course, when that does occur the commission will be bound by the new rules around what must be excluded from any agreement. There is simply no time for unions and their members to run industrial campaigns to pursue their interests. The legislation also prohibits agreement from the employer or the decision of the commission to award an interim pay rise while negotiations are continuing or retrospective pay rises when agreement is reached. I am sure LNP members will be sent in here to claim that the right to take protected industrial action still exists on paper. I wonder if they have actually read those provisions and if they actually believe what they are saying, because the reality is that the right of a union and its members to take protected industrial action in Queensland has effectively been abolished. Protected industrial action is prohibited during the term of a certified agreement. Although negotiations on a new agreement can begin prior to the expiry date of an existing agreement, the peace obligation period of 21 days during which no protected action is allowed ends no earlier than seven days after the expiry date of an existing agreement. Upon the end of the peace obligation period, the Industrial Relations Commission must begin the conciliation and arbitration process if one party—the employer—requests the Industrial Relations Commission to do so and the commission is satisfied that another party is organising or engaging in or threatening to engage in industrial action that affects or threatens to affect access to or delivery of services to the community. Obviously, it should be clear to everyone that all industrial action in the public sector will meet this broad criterion of affecting the delivery of public services. Lo and behold, during the period of conciliation and arbitration, protection action is also prohibited. Protected industrial action can only occur after a ballot of members conducted by the Queensland Electoral Commission. So, if a union were to successfully conduct a ballot for protected industrial action to begin following the peace period, the government would simply have to apply for the commission to begin the conciliation and arbitration process to circumvent any ability of the unions and its members to take action. Is this government seriously suggesting that at the conclusion of an existing agreement a union is meant to commence a ballot of members and take industrial
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3918 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill action within a period of seven days before the government will force every case to the commission? It does not make sense. It is simply absurd for the LNP to claim that with these strict changes put in place protected industrial action is possible. This debate about the right to take protected action is not just a technical discussion about how this new law will operate. It goes to the core of the rights of employees to utilise the one bargaining tool they have—the right to withdraw their labour. The reason the stripping of that right is so damaging in this case is that the legislation creates so many points of disagreement over very significant matters of public policy. We are not talking about pulling a snap strike for the sake of it. This legislation effectively outlaws employees from taking protected action over the reduction in take-home pay, the removal of fatigue provisions for doctors, the increasing workloads on nurses and allied health professionals, and the increases in class sizes for kids right across Queensland. This is just another example of this government introducing horrific laws but then not stopping there. They are also intent on silencing anyone who would stand up against the LNP’s changes. So they remove the ability of employees and employers to come to a comprehensive agreement. They remove the power of the QIRC to arbitrate a comprehensive agreement. They try to remove the ability of unions to spend their own money raising issues in the public arena. And they ban employees from taking industrial action over issues at the very core of their workplace and which affect service delivery for community members right across the state. The exclusion of so many elements to enterprise agreements will have serious impacts on the services provided to the Queensland public. In particular, the legislation will see senior doctors and nurses placed on individual contracts. Worryingly, their individual agreements will strip out fatigue provisions that currently exist to ensure doctors and nurses do not operate on patients when they are exhausted after long shifts. It will seriously impact on patient care to have hospital managers with the power to direct health practitioners to undertake work, rather than the fatigue and safety concerns of those health workers being paramount. During the hearing on this bill, the AMA was present to explain their views on the feeling amongst senior doctors in the public health system. I asked— Is there is lot of uncertainty at the moment with the senior doctors about these proposals? Mr Turner, representing the AMA, said— Considering the quite dramatic changes that are proposed, coupled with the pace at which it is happening, it is obvious that there is a huge degree of uncertainty. What we are hearing as their peak representative body is that people will just move interstate or into private practice. This is obviously information that we have heard from our members. I also asked— So you could actually see a mass exodus of doctors from our public hospital system? Mr Turner responded— We are concerned. Consistent with our statement today and with information we have communicated to the minister, we are concerned about workforce across the state, because of the decentralised nature of medical services. I want to put it to those opposite, especially to the LNP members who represent communities in provincial cities in regional and rural parts of this state, that it is not a Labor conspiracy that this legislation will impact on the workforce within the public hospital system. This parliament has been provided with that clear evidence from the AMA. I want those regional LNP members to consider what they are going to tell their constituents when their local hospital or health facility suddenly loses services, loses doctors and the quality of care to their community is slashed. What we will remind their constituents is that it was not a mistake. They did not do it accidentally. They have been warned. Now they are in parliament deliberately attacking workers’ rights, stripping important workload provisions from agreements, and what we will see is doctors leaving our public health system and the quality of care will suffer as a result. The impact of this legislation will risk the structural and systemic strength of the health system. In health care, the quality of the treatment that patients receive is determined not just by the individual skills of the treating doctors and nurses but also by the systemic environment and working conditions that the system delivers. Let me read into the record the evidence of Beth Mohle, Secretary of the QNU, which represents Queensland nurses and midwives. She said— While this bill, if it becomes law, will strip away a significant number of industrial provisions currently enjoyed by nurses and midwives in our public health system, there is one most serious matter that has been directly targeted by the bill as being a non-allowable matter in any industrial instrument and that is the provision that relates to workload management. The current nursing and midwifery award and our current certified agreement contain both provisions in relation to the workload
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3919 Other Legislation Amendment Bill management tool known as the business planning framework. This is a recognised business tool designed to determine appropriate staffing levels for nurses and midwives. This ensures that safe nursing practice can be maintained and, therefore, ensures safety for patients. The workload provision was first put into our award in 2002 and by consent of Queensland Health and the QNU has remained an industrial provision ever since. It is a dynamic tool that has been amended and improved over this time. At no point since its inception in 2002 has Queensland Health raised any objection to the ongoing application of this tool. Indeed, this is the very tool that has been used to develop the staffing levels for our new Queensland Children’s Hospital, which will open in late 2014. Here we have laid bare for all of those opposite the very real impact that this legislation will have. It will erode the working conditions of hardworking men and women who dedicate their professional lives to caring for sick Queenslanders in our public health facilities, and it will erode the quality of care that those men and women strive to provide each and every day. This will, in turn, end up hurting patients who need care the most. Alex Scott from the Together union also provided a clear explanation of how this legislation will impact on patient care and how this will occur with the proposals put forward by the government. He said— This committee needs to understand, if the legislation goes through and the draft contracts, as we understand them, go through—and I would implore you to get briefings on the nature of those contracts—what we will see is a complete power balance change within the hospital system and Queenslanders will die unnecessarily at the hands of this parliament. At the moment there is a fundamental difference between the work done by senior medical officers who are dedicated individuals trying to save lives and do the best for patients and senior managers who are under strict instructions to balance the budget.
At the end of day, when my children are in the hospital ward, I want the person making the decision to care about them not the budget. This contract is about reforming the certainty of employment for senior medical officers. I think that will dramatically change the ability of senior medical officers to stand up to hospital managers, to stand up to those people in Charlotte Street and say, ‘No, this is wrong.’ We have already seen a number of senior medical officers move sideways under the current regime. What the contract arrangements would allow is for those people to be dismissed if they stand up and say what the government does not want to hear or say what the health managers do not want to hear.
This government has historically used its power in parliament to override collective bargaining agreements. This legislation would allow local managers to override the contracts that are in place. If you sign a contract in the private sector, you sign a contract that gives you certainty. If you are a senior medical officer with a gun to your head over your income and you sign a contract, the employer can change that contract whenever they like. But the most evil part of this legislation is the complete deregulation of hours for senior medical officers. For years, through collective bargaining, doctors have been warning managers that, no matter how talented and no matter how dedicated these doctors are, if you work shift after shift after shift, if you work excessive hours, you will become sleep deprived and you will make the same mistakes as if you were under the influence of alcohol. The process of moving doctors away from collective bargaining, where they have a voice and a guarantee about inappropriate shifts not being worked, to the contracts that we believe are being proposed by the health system will remove any guarantees senior doctors have in relation to saying, ‘Unreasonable hours, no. I am too tired to see this patient. I need to go home and rest.’
At the moment the department tries to get around that, but there is a significant financial penalty. That is why we have fatigue leave clauses, to force hospital managers to manage the staff to fix the patients. The annualised process being suggested under these contracts will mean people do not lose money but work excessive hours, and the parliament will be giving to local hospital managers the ability to manage the hours of doctors. We think that will be an absolute disaster, because we know historically that prior to collective bargaining hospital managers worked junior and senior doctors for far too long. Mistakes were made; people died. This will happen in your electorate unless you stop these contracts. Let me make this clear: members of the House have been warned fairly and squarely about the flow-on impacts of this legislation. It is not just on workers and families but also on patients who rely on a good quality public health system for their ongoing care and at times to save their lives. This legislation also impacts on schools right across Queensland. One of the provisions that will be forced to be excluded from any agreement with teachers is the requirement to maintain teacher-student ratios. Increasing class sizes will impact on students in every community especially the most vulnerable. The evidence provided by the QTU demonstrates clearly how this legislation will negatively impact on teachers across the state and will reduce the services provided to students. Let me quote from the QTU in relation to Kate’s testimony at the committee. She said— It is difficult to clearly determine what elements of certified agreements and awards would be prohibited given the introduction of non-allowable matters in legislation. However, in attempting to decipher the intent, the QTU believes that some of the following might be at risk from its own awards and agreements: curriculum coordination time provided to primary schools; heads of curriculum positions provided to primary schools; the school based management guarantees, which actually offer protections around the government’s independent public schools proposals; class sizes; the Remote Area Incentives Scheme; transfers and relocations; and the access of temporary teachers to permanency. These are core elements of the modern education system. In attacking teachers, this government is undermining important pillars of our education system. This legislation will hurt not only teachers and principals but also negatively impact on students and their families. Workplace
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3920 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill delegates from United Voice made a passionate contribution to the public hearing on this bill, and I want to do their contribution justice by reading parts of it into the record today. The committee heard from Barbara, a school cleaner, who stated— I am here because I worry about the removal of the workload management provisions and job security. If the workload management provision is removed it will impact on our children’s health. School cleaners are vital in keeping schools and kids healthy and safe. Without thorough cleaning, our schools are the perfect breeding ground for germs and disease. If the calculation of cleaning time is removed from our agreement we will have to clean more rooms with fewer resources in the same time frame. Efficiency will go down and infection will go up.
In terms of job security, employment is very important to all workers, especially school cleaners. The uncertainty around whether our job may be outsourced is very stressful. It puts pressure on our families, especially our budgets. The threat that you may lose your job at any given time makes you second-guess purchasing goods such as a washing machine or refrigerator or getting a loan to buy a car. At the back of your mind you are concerned about being able to pay that debt. If job security is removed from the award our stability goes. United Voice Senior Industrial Officer Kylie Badke outlined that it will have deep impacts to exclude so many elements of normal workplace relationships from being allowed to exist in enterprise agreements even when the employer and employees would otherwise both agree. Ms Badke outlined— These changes are designed to remove protections contained in awards and collective agreements and move employees onto individual contracts. By isolating and seeding division, this government seeks to disempower its workforce.
Significant changes will be made to the process of making certified agreements. When parties come together to negotiate certified agreements they will no longer be permitted to negotiate about matters essential to the employment relationship. For example, in the negotiation for the agreement applying to teacher aides, the parties agreed to maximise the number of hours provided to existing permanent employees. These are not only employee protections but enhance productivity and employee job satisfaction. It is entirely reasonable for industrial parties to be able to reach agreement on these types of employment conditions. Both Barbara and Ms Badke raised important points about how this legislation will impact on communities across Queensland on not only front-line workers but also their families, local economies and schools. When workload provisions are deliberately excluded from agreements, the quality of services provided to our community will suffer. That extends to the support provided to students by teacher aides, by cleaners who keep our schools clean and by orderlies, nurses, doctors and allied health professionals who care for our patients and our public hospital system right across Queensland. As we have argued on this side of the House for the last 18 months, when you strip away the job security of workers, you destroy consumer confidence. Then you will see the very natural reactions from workers and their families when they spend less in their local economy and at times pack up shop, move interstate and perhaps never return to Queensland. Mr Minnikin: Who wrote this rubbish? It is absolute rubbish. Ms PALASZCZUK: You will have a chance to speak shortly. I have a new candidate for Chatsworth just about to be announced. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr Minnikin: I look forward to it. Mrs Frecklington: What about relevance? Ms PALASZCZUK: This is all relevant. Mrs Frecklington: The member for Chatsworth? Ms PALASZCZUK: The new Labor candidate. I am looking forward to that announcement. We might even do it this week just for the member for Chatsworth. Mr Minnikin: An early Christmas present, thank you. Government members interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: Mr Deputy Speaker, they do not like these candidates out in the field. I can see they are all getting a little testy. All of these candidates will be out there talking about what you are doing to industrial relations in this state. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, let’s get back to the bill. Ms PALASZCZUK: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that my colleague the member for Rockhampton and shadow minister for emergency services will explain how this legislation will impact significantly on the front-line work of police officers, ambulance officers and
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3921 Other Legislation Amendment Bill firefighters. These hardworking Queenslanders dedicate their life to public service and do not deserve to be attacked in the way this government insists upon. They undertake important and complicated work, and the range of duties undertaken across emergency services is greatly varied. Employment agreements are comprehensive because they reflect the nature of the work they do. I thank the representatives from United Firefighters Union, United Voice and all the unions who represent these workers on a day in, day out basis and provided important testimony to the committee. As I flagged, the member for Rockhampton will examine this area in more detail, but it should be a wake-up call to those opposite that when they attack police officers, ambulance officers, firefighters and nurses they are attacking the services they provide to communities right across our great state. At the end of the day, it will be Queenslanders who will lose. There is also a serious risk that this legislation is not only about immediate harm to employees but also about setting up future government policy outcomes such as mass outsourcing. The stripping of entitlements for health workers, making awards as simple as possible and reducing redundancy payments can be seen as preparation for the mass outsourcing of health employees. The plan for mass outsourcing is set out in both the Costello audit and the health blueprint. There is also the risk that the stripping of entitlements makes it more likely to transfer non-incorporated private sector bodies into the state system. It was flagged by the Attorney-General last year, and I ask him to address in his reply whether he can absolutely rule this option out. In summary, this legislation is another attack by this government on the pay and conditions of workers across the state. This legislation will attack hardworking health staff and reduce their take-home pay as well as that of front-line police, firefighters, ambulance officers and teachers. Mr Cox: It will make sure they get paid. That is what it will do. Ms PALASZCZUK: Up to 17,000 people are not being paid at the moment because they have been sacked by this government—up to 17,000. That is not good for those families or the Queensland economy. The bill also attacks penalty rates for workers— Government members interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: Everybody has a chance to speak in this debate. I look forward to the contributions of members who are so keen to interject but who perhaps may not be so keen to hop on their feet and defend these attacks on workers across our state. This legislation attacks penalty rates for workers who have to leave their families to work while the rest of us have the day off. This government does not care about workers receiving fair pay for their work and they do not care about families being able to spend quality time together. The LNP changes will put senior doctors and nurses on individual contracts and will remove fatigue provisions that prevent doctors from operating on patients when they are too tired. The government is preparing for mass privatisation of health services and it needs to come clean with Queenslanders about where and when this is going to happen. That will be bad for health workers and all Queenslanders who deserve the highest quality and accessible public healthcare system across the state. I would actually give credit to those in the government if they just came out and were honest about what they are trying to do. They should just put their side of the debate and prosecute their ideological arguments. They do not believe workers have the right to collectively bargain. They do not think workers have the right to take industrial action even in circumstances endorsed by the independent umpire. They want to make it easier for the government to unilaterally reduce redundancy payments by removing those requirements from enforceable agreements. They did not tell the people of Queensland before the last election they intended to do this. The least they can do is admit what they are doing now. Queenslanders deserve better from this arrogant government. They deserve to be able to work with dignity. They should have the right to collectively bargain. They should have the right to strike. But this government is on an ideological bent to completely strip away workers’ rights and entitlements. At the end of the day the public will become wiser about what this government is doing. I look forward to attending the rally this afternoon—the rally that will be attended by workers in this state who are concerned about what this government is doing. This government continues to attack workers, stripping away their dignity, stripping away their rights, and they will never stop. This Attorney-General has an ideological vision in which he keeps coming in and changing the industrial relations system in this state. The opposition is very clear in its opposition to this bill. We will not be supporting it. We do not believe in it. When Labor is returned to government we will restore the balance.
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3922 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
Mr BERRY (Ipswich—LNP) (3.12 pm): It is certainly a pleasure for me to be able to stand here in this place and speak to the Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. Certainly my experience as a lawyer was that, when you act for a plaintiff, you try to clear the water and make it succinct. I think that is the position from which we in the government come. If you are acting for the defence, you muddy the waters and cloud the issues so it makes it so much harder to pick up what is really happening in this economy. I think that is the role that is taken by the opposition: they scaremonger, say anything, do anything, cloud the waters but make sure that the clear position is not known to the general public and, quite frankly, that is whom we are assisting with this bill. Twenty years ago the OECD said that Australia and Queensland are inflexible in their employment practices. That evidence has been around for quite some time. We are falling behind the industrial world with our archaic, historic work practices. So what do we want out of this bill? We want flexibility. We want employers and employees to reach agreement by establishing flexibility. So how does one do that? Flexibility is best served by having minimal requirements and allowing those matters which are important to employers and employees to be negotiated upon. After all, the evidence seems to be that in Queensland we have 83 awards in just this narrow sector of Public Service and local government. That says a lot about what has been happening. For 20 years we have had a system which has not changed at all. The people who actually make the jobs out there are the people in private industry. The Public Service and local government, in effect, are there to service the private industry, the private employees. We have a disequilibrium occurring. I might just recount one story about an accountant in Ipswich who indicated to me that he had difficulty getting accountants and I wondered why. He said, ‘The thrust of it is that the Public Service is actually paying more money and they will not come to Ipswich.’ How silly and how out of kilter is an arrangement where you can work half as much and get paid twice as much? There is a disequilibrium out there that ought to be reconciled, and it will be reconciled by this bill. These 83 awards will be reduced to about 20. I am not going to entertain the impact that those 83 awards had on the Health payroll system. People do not need to be too bright to work out there is a relationship between the two. But with a system of 20 awards there will be better harmony. After all, why is this bill being criticised so emotionally when, after the referral of industrial relations power to the federal government, the federal Labor government had 1,500 awards to contend with? However, that Labor government reduced the awards to 122. Heavens above, the sky has not yet fallen down as far as I am aware. It is still up there. The reality of life is that this is doing no more than doing business in Queensland. We have already started the process. The green, red and blue tape has been reduced. I make mention of that because the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned employees, employment and redundancies. Let me make a slight diversion into those areas. The reality of life is that our economy is recovering. There are some handicaps there in relation to Fair Work not giving enough flexibility. What is the anomaly that is occurring in our economy? People are getting part-time work. Why would they be getting part-time work under Fair Work, because that seems to be the evidence? The position is that employers will not put on full-time employees if they are not sure whether that employee will work out or they are not sure that they will be able to sustain that employee. If they had greater flexibility that position probably would be arrested. You will put on a person if you can get rid of a person if your circumstances change. That means that if you are going broke, you can take measures on your bottom line. That is what business is about: making decisions. Yet that seems to have been forgotten here. There is no talk about contestability, no talk about working to make sure that you are competitive in the workplace, because that is effectively what this is all about. It is about being contestable and being competitive, and that will be an ongoing matter. It will happen because it needs to happen. The people in the real economy out there know it needs to happen. They talk every day to each of our members about how there has to be industrial relations reform in this state. It has not happened for 20 years and it needs to happen now. It is well beyond the use-by date. When the Fair Work Act came out and there was a reduction in the number of awards, were there protests by employers? No. Were there protests by employees? No. Were there protests by unions? No. There were no protests at all. When one attempts to harmonise the two, there is no creed that says that harmony has to be exactly the same. Queensland is a sovereign state and is entitled to make laws to deal with its economy as it thinks best. After all, it is the government; that is its job. It is doing so with this legislation.
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3923 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
The purpose of the public hearings which were conducted by my committee was to extract information which would be of assistance to it in making recommendations. At this point I would like to thank the firefighters union for their valuable contribution. It allowed us to see an anomaly and to address it as part of the recommendations. I thank the Queensland Police Union for raising a matter which needed to be addressed, and that is also dealt with in the recommendations. As for the rest, it is the same old rhetoric: unable to change. No wonder the union movement are having difficulty retaining members and their numbers are reducing. They see this as an affront to unionism. Well, it probably is. The reality of life is that unions have just failed to adapt. I will not go into the corruption and so forth that happens, because for the most part that is in another state. Perhaps that just comes from the fact that democracy is probably a little bit lacking in unions, but I am sure they will adjust to that in due course and that in time, with our assistance, members will get a fair go. We are dealing with an industrial relations harmonisation bill that really is centring on problems in our society and our economy more particularly. We are a mixed economy and it does revolve around competition and contestability. It is not a socialist system; it never has been. It has been about people there in the private sector and all of those small businessmen and women who are out there. Do they get a redundancy package if things are tight and they go broke? No, they go out the back door. They go bankrupt. They do not get any redundancy packages. Yet the conversation in this place at the moment is, ‘Let’s look after the workers.’ I think job security, job stability and efficiencies were referred to. I could not agree more. Generally, job stability comes with efficiencies. If you are efficient, you will have a secure job; but if you become inefficient, there has got to be an adjustment. I will take you back to the days of the Labor government under Premier Bligh, who went out there and said that she was going to create employment. I refer directly to the opposition leader’s comment about the alleged sacking of 1,400 workers. I am not entirely sure of its relevance, but it has been raised and it ought to be addressed. As I understand it, the Labor government under Premier Bligh had temporary workers and contract workers. About 9,200 people received redundancies, and I might say that they were the best offered. Quite frankly, it was the case that employment in the Public Service was a matter of attempting to carry out a policy by the Bligh Labor government which was unsustainable. I was doorknocking at Wood End and I introduced myself to a lady and said, ‘I am here to talk about issues.’ I thought it might have been a little confrontational because she said, ‘My daughter was sacked from QBuild.’ I said, ‘Look, I am really sorry to hear that.’ She said, ‘Well, really she wasn’t surprised.’ She was a temporary worker. She was not made a permanent worker by the Bligh government, so it was understood. She moved to her grandmother’s house and eventually got a job in government somewhere else. But she said her daughter thought it was going to happen anyway because even though she was hired as a temporary worker, when she got there, there were three people in QBuild who were doing nothing. They had nothing to do! So what is happening? Where is this disconnect between those in the private sector who go bankrupt when their business goes belly up, and their employees who then have go back onto the market and fend for themselves without a generous redundancy scheme. This bill is now re-establishing the proper balance between what drives this economy and the Public Service which services the economy. Dare I say that Queensland is open for business. It is not a sheltered workshop. There are economic pressures on each and every one of us to perform. The Public Service deserves respect. I might say that in Ipswich they have got our respect because the Ipswich Hospital is probably one of the best run in the Queensland state system. We have often had Minister Springborg come to us and use us as an illustration of what happens when you make some tough decisions. When we first came to office the hospital owed $17 million, and after approximately 12 months it was down to about $4 million. But then we had that lie which said that $4.3 million—which was not paid to us in a budget year—was not going to be paid, so it went up to $7 million. Now we are in the black. Why is it that in 18 months—notwithstanding the hiccup with the federal government and the Wayne Swan surplus—we can now get back to about $7 million in the black? Because hard decisions have been made, and part of that process of hard decisions involves this legislation. You will not get this legislation under Labor in any shape, manner or form because it is too connected with labour and the unions for reform like this to actually happen. It just will not occur. The position is that this is necessary and it will go through this place and, quite frankly, Queenslanders will be celebrating about this; they will not be protesting out there. They will be working, but they will be celebrating this important bill.
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3924 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
In relation to the $1.57 per hour and so forth, I say to the opposition leader that there are a lot of people out there who do tough and heavy jobs; we all know that. A lot of people do not get paid for some of those jobs; we all know that. But we do those jobs, and I hope that there is some substance in the opposition leader’s remarks, because I was looking for evidence upon which to base the allegation that we are going to have absolute chaos in Queensland because of this industrial relations law. That is why I said what I did about the sky falling down. I just simply cannot see any evidence which supports that. There has been a lot of scaremongering about doctors. Well, what are doctors going to do? They are going to bargain for what is fair. How unusual is that? That is what is going to happen in our system. It will be the case that there will be consensus, and of course if there is no consensus you have the right to withdraw your labour if you so choose. Doctors, if they have not already, have the right to go into private practice. They have chosen to be in the public system for reasons we do not need to know, but they need to know and they need to make decisions. I was truly disappointed by the public hearings. I thought we would receive a lot more. We are talking here today about this bill not getting enough public attention, yet the majority of the unions came up with nothing of substance that we could use to assist. Again I say that I think the firefighters and police union did the job that was required of them—that is, to put forward the views of their members and to hope for a reasonable recommendation. The opposition leader mentioned staff ratios. How many times have we heard today about staff ratios? It is great to have that as a measure, but is it really a measure of whether a teacher is effective? Teacher-student ratios have in fact been coming down—I think it is about one to 28 at the moment—yet NAPLAN results have not improved. The performance indicators are not showing improvement. So where is the disconnect there? I do not know, but there needs to be a lot more thought about that process. This bill is part of the process. It is part of the big picture of making sure that Queensland does become a balanced economy and fair to all—not just fair to public servants and local government employees but also fair to the mum and dad who run the corner shop, fair to the people who work in industry and fair to the people who work on weekends to get the job done. The bill does not represent extreme industrial relations. This government has the mandate—a clear majority mandate—to do what it must do to get this economy back on track, and it is doing so. I certainly support the Attorney-General’s transition of this bill into law. Hon. GW ELMES (Noosa—LNP) (Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Premier) (3.32 pm): I was fortunate in a sense, I suppose, to be in the House to hear the honourable the Leader of the Opposition— Mr Crandon: No, that was unfortunate. Mr ELMES: Well, I said I was fortunate after a fact. Once again we heard from the Leader of the Opposition a diatribe, which members of the Labor opposition continue to go on with, in terms of some of the macabre measures the government seems to have implemented when it comes to the Public Service. Again this morning a question was directed to the Premier with regard to the amount by which the Public Service has been reduced since the LNP came to power. I really cannot let this opportunity pass me by. The Leader of the Opposition also said during her contribution that she was looking forward to going outside, probably in an hour and a half or two hours time, and standing in front of her union mates, the union bosses and the people who will ensure her preselection to explain to them all that we are bad and they are good. Well, prior to the election taking place the then Labor government had its own plan. That plan would have seen a reduction in the Queensland Public Service of a total of 41,753 people. That included around 13,800 front-line workers. Where do I get that information from? It comes from the Public Service Commission— department by department. It is all there. This was their plan—not ours; theirs—yet they have the gall to come into this place and seriously criticise the government about the responsible measures that it has taken in order to get the books of Queensland back into some sort of order so that this state can be the great success and financial powerhouse it used to be. I find it a pity that what drives members opposite is not in the best interests of Queensland or Queenslanders. I also find it a pity that their main interest is not in making our workplace arrangements more efficient or responsive so that the state can be more productive. I also find it a pity that their industrial relations agenda is based on the interests of a few union boss mates.
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3925 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
The bill we have before us today reforms the industrial relations framework, particularly the Industrial Relations Act 1999 for Queensland. The bill responds to the recommendations of the Queensland Commission of Audit and the Blueprint for Better Healthcare in Queensland. I want to use my time today to reflect on how this bill will assist in the Newman government’s objective to make Queensland’s Public Service the best in Australia. That is what it is going to be: the best in Australia. The Queensland government is committed to the goal of being the best Public Service in the nation, delivering value for money and achieving better outcomes for the public. That requires us to improve the way our Public Service is organised and the way our Public Service is managed. The framework set out in the bill is essential to providing for a modern, flexible and responsive industrial relations framework—a framework that drives improved service delivery, encourages the quick resolution of wages negotiations, avoids the public being caught up in prolonged disputes that disrupt the delivery of important public services and provides a safety net for employees. A decision handed down in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission last week for ambulance officers highlights the importance of this bill. The commission granted ambulance officers a 2.2 per cent pay rise—the same amount as offered by the government but rejected by the union in August last year. Had the provisions of this bill been in place then, the arbitration process could have commenced much earlier and ambulance officers would have had their pay rise much sooner. Another example is the core Public Service agreement that applies to approximately 50,000 employees of Queensland government entities. Negotiations commenced in approximately May last year. Had the provisions of this bill applied to those negotiations, employees covered by the core agreement would almost certainly have been guaranteed a pay rise no later than Christmas last year. Under current legislation, those 50,000 public servants could have to wait until at least the second half of next year before they get a pay rise through the arbitration process. So far we have been opposed at every stage by the Together union, the people supposedly standing up for workers. The state government has been trying to give core public servants a fair and reasonable pay rise, but it is being blocked by Alex Scott, who will be outside saying that he is the worker’s friend, and the rest of his Together union mates. Two-thirds of core public servants are not even members of Together union, but they have been denied a say so far in what pay rise they should get and how quickly they should get it. Unfortunately for all of those hardworking public servants, the core negotiating process is outside the scope of this bill because it is already in train. The only hope for a resolution in the near future is for the Together union to see reason and return to the negotiating table to settle the core agreement in line with the decision to grant ambulance staff a 2.2 per cent pay increase. The bill also introduces comprehensive legislated minimum employment standards, known as the Queensland Employment Standards, QES. The QES will provide a safety net of minimum employment conditions for workers, and consistency and certainty for employers operating in the Queensland industrial relations jurisdiction. The QES are based upon the existing state and federal standards and give a solid foundation similar to the National Employment Standards found in the Fair Work Act. The bill also establishes a process to modernise, rationalise and reduce the 84 current state and local government awards operating in Queensland. More than 50 of those awards apply specifically to the Queensland public sector. The IR framework streamlines bargaining arrangements and specified time frames for agreement making and assisted conciliation and arbitration. No longer will we have protracted bargaining, conciliation and arbitration processes which last for more than a year. All of this means pay increases sooner for employees and more certainty for managers and their staff. The IR framework also allows for highly paid senior staff whose remuneration is above $129,300 to be employed under individual employment contracts. The income threshold ensures that lower paid workers will continue to be part of the award coverage system and bargain collectively. But for these high-income earners the bill provides for them to move to individual contracts, recognising the key skills that these high-value employees bring. The government’s goal is to reform and renew the Queensland public sector to be, as I said, the best Public Service in Australia. The people of Queensland are entitled to a Public Service which provides the services they need, and the Public Service has the responsibility to deliver those services as efficiently and in the most professional manner possible. That is what they are getting from this government. This bill should be welcomed by all Queensland public servants because it means that they have the best of
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3926 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill both worlds. This bill provides an opportunity for unions to get in and negotiate in good faith on behalf of their members to secure a timely wage outcome. However, they have the security that, if union leaders are being obstinate in delaying negotiations, there is a process to ensure that the matter goes to the independent umpire for arbitration within guaranteed time lines. This government is interested in the welfare of all Public Service employees, not just those who are union members. I commend the bill to the House. Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (3.41 pm): This is an appalling piece of legislation. It is the latest in a long line of appalling bits of legislation offered by this appalling Attorney-General. It attacks the hard-won workplace rights of decent Queenslanders. It undermines the conditions of low-paid, hardworking public servants. It goes even further than John Howard’s maligned and much hated Work Choices legislation. This bill is abhorrent to Queensland Labor and will have a real and material impact on working Queenslanders. Sadly, we have become very used to the Attorney-General presenting awful legislation in this parliament—bill after bill stripping away workplace rights, bill after bill attacking fundamental legislative principles. In fact, he almost seems to enjoy this, but we should never forget that the Attorney-General is not a lone figure in this government. He acts with the approval and sanction of the Premier, the cabinet and the entire LNP backbench who, by supporting this legislation, are complicit in the effects it will have on workers in their electorates. It must be a great comfort to the Premier and the entire government that they have an Attorney-General who is willing to be the smirking public face of the government’s ideological assault on public sector workers. The Premier must be very satisfied that he has an Attorney-General he can trot out to do the dirtiest work of his government. If I could just offer the Attorney-General a warning, though, it would be that all of his loyalty and his preparedness to do the dirty work will not save him when his meanness comes back to bite him. The Premier will not give a second thought to casting the Attorney-General aside when the time comes, and let me assure the Attorney-General that that time will come. I would say it took the Premier more than a little while to act when it came to the members for Moggill and Mudgeeraba when their misdeeds became public knowledge. That would be giving the Premier credit for acting and actually imposing the high standards he promised Queenslanders, but to date it seems to have only been felt by the member for Gympie. If the Premier were to cut the Attorney-General loose and install someone in the position who had a chance of garnering the respect of the legal profession and the broader Queensland public, including people working in industrial unions, at least he could get someone who has some experience. Then again, the Premier has experience in this space—sacking in excess of 14,000 government workers, as he has stated publically. Perhaps the fact that the Premier this morning failed to answer a question about how many public servants have been sacked by this government is an indication that his mind is otherwise occupied on matters such as how to move on the member for Kawana. So I would suggest to the Attorney-General that if he is enjoying the role of being the tough talker on ‘anything and everything’ he should enjoy it while he can, because it will not last. I will hazard the prediction that the Attorney-General may well meet a political end that will not be at a time of his choosing. I also take this opportunity to warn the Premier that if he thinks he can hide behind the Attorney-General he is sorely mistaken. I will not let him and Labor will not let him. It is a government decision to strip away workers’ rights, and as the head of the government the Premier is responsible for that decision. Let me say this to government backbenchers: we will make sure that their constituents know how they voted to strip away workers’ rights with this bill today. The members for Caloundra, Kallangur, Toowoomba North, Logan, Springwood, Cook, Waterford and Burleigh would know by now that Labor has candidates on the ground in their electorates. Our strong candidates will be out in their electorates telling people about how their MP voted to take away workers’ rights. But MPs in other electorates should not feel like they can get away with their actions today, and nor should they feel left out. Fear not: we will have candidates in their seats soon. I was particularly disappointed to read a front-page article in the Courier-Mail on 1 November in which the Minister for Health tried to suggest that there was some nefarious, evil, secret scheme going on in which Queensland Health workers were paid allowances for performing particular duties. First of all, it should not come as a surprise to anyone that there are a number of allowances built into current enterprise bargaining agreements. This is a standard practice in both the private and public sectors. It allows employers to differentiate between different tasks performed by employees and pay them appropriately for each task. Allowances also make sure that workers are not required to perform tasks that are outside of their normal job description without being compensated. The minister tried to suggest that these were somehow lucrative bonuses paid out to union fat cats when nothing could be further from the truth.
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3927 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
The main example used in the article is that staff are sometimes paid an extra $1.56 per day for cleaning soiled linen. It is hardly on the level of bonuses handed out to private sector employees all of the time. It is a demonstration of just how callous, cruel and cold this government and this health minister can be. When we are talking about changing bed linen, it is not like changing bed linen at home. Many of us will be familiar with what it is like to change sheets after a child has wet the bed. That is what you do as a parent. But hospital orderlies have to deal with situations that are orders of magnitude much worse than that. Although the Leader of the Opposition has already said this, it is worth saying again. When giving evidence to the committee, AWU State Secretary Ben Swan explained what this allowance is actually for. He stated— Cleaning laundry in a hospital is not like cleaning laundry at home. You are talking about things that are infected with pus, vomit, blood, faeces, urine and all the other things that go on with that. You are talking about linen that on occasion includes discarded needles, some of which may have been exposed to persons with particular infections. This is not giggles sort of scenarios in a hospital environment. These are the people who are doing the most unglamorous work in hospitals who earn, compared to other professionals or other people working in hospitals, nowhere near what they deserve, in my opinion. This is difficult work but work that needs to be done. It is only fair that we pay people appropriately for doing that work. Queensland Labor understands and appreciates the people who do this work for the health system. We will not stand by when the health minister ridicules hospital cleaners and ward staff. Thankfully the people of Queensland were not fooled by this one-trick pony health minister and they will not be fooled by this legislation. I read the letters to the editor in the next day’s Courier-Mail with some interest and not one of them had fallen for the government’s spin. They bring common sense to the minister’s ideological rant. Max Tanzer from Elliott Heads wrote— I have never worked for any government enterprise, but after a lifetime working for private enterprise, from corner engineering workshops to BHP, I can assure him that extra payments are paid by every employer that I ever worked with, for these types of unpleasant and sometimes dangerous conditions. If the State Government succeeds in removing these payments it may not be able to get people to do its dirty work. If that then leads to having these tasks done by private companies, the costs will be much higher. R Hamlet of Pittsworth hit the nail on the head when they said— Just for the record, I am fine with hospital cleaners being paid $1.50 extra a day to wash soiled bedsheets. Excessive allowances for politicians I do have a problem with. That is the point: the Newman government got caught giving itself a massive pay rise, but it is happy to lower the pay of hospital workers, and therein lies the problem for this government—doing one thing for itself and making Queenslanders come a distant second. I want to take a moment to reflect on how these changes are particularly bad for regional Queenslanders like the people in my electorate of Mulgrave. These laws strip workers’ rights everywhere and they will be bad for workers everywhere, but they will impact particularly harshly on regional communities. Public sector workers are integral parts of regional communities. They provide essential services and they bring money into the town. This legislation is designed to drive down working conditions of public sector workers. It is designed to drive down the working conditions of teachers, the working conditions of nurses and the working conditions of correctional service employees. This will have a disproportionate effect on regional communities. This will happen for three reasons. Firstly, in most regional centres government workers are a larger percentage of the workforce than Queensland as a whole. In Far North Queensland, for example, taking in my electorate of Mulgrave and the electorates of Cairns, Barron River and Cook, 9.2 per cent of the workforce is employed in public administration and safety. This compares to a state-wide figure of just 6.7 per cent. The second reason is that regional communities are more dependent on local salaries flowing through their local businesses. Brisbane has a more diverse economy than regional centres like Cairns which means that often when one sector is hurting it has a lower impact on the overall economy. The third reason is that, because these economies are less diverse, it often becomes necessary for people who have been laid off or who have had their working conditions and pay reduced by so much to start looking for jobs elsewhere. People are forced to move away from towns in which they have built their lives and families because of the cruel actions of a callous government. These people could be the tuckshop lady, someone who volunteers for the rural fire brigade, or somebody who works in the SES. These are all people who often have to have other jobs. When they disappear because of the actions of this Newman government, towns are left wanting and there is a void that needs to be filled. I know people who have been forced to move away from the towns in which they lived. I know that is not something that they wanted to do. I have met with families in my office who have had to do just that. This is real. That is something that I think the members of this chamber need to appreciate. This is not a
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3928 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill hypothetical; these are real families who are going to have massive impacts from this legislation. When you hit the Public Service like this government has time and time again, you hit regional communities the worst. The members of the Newman government who represent regional areas should be hanging their heads in shame. I will finish where I started. This is a horrible piece of legislation. It takes away the rights and protections of hardworking, decent Queenslanders. It is the next step in the LNP’s relentless assault on the Queensland public sector. It is yet another broken promise from a Premier who told public servants that they had nothing to fear from him. I will not be supporting this legislation and neither will anybody in the Labor caucus. Certainly, I know that it is going to be opposed every step of the way not only within this chamber but also by all of those who will assemble at a rally this afternoon and those in the broader labour movement in Queensland. On numerous occasions we have seen this government use harmonisation as something that it can hide behind. This is not harmonisation; this is cherry picking. This bill is dolled up and dressed up to be something that is not. But then again, that is what we have come to expect from the Newman government. Mr CHOAT (Ipswich West—LNP) (3.51 pm): I rise to also contribute to the debate on the Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. As a member of the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee, I have been able to consider the elements of this bill quite closely and to obtain assistance in providing advice and feedback to the people of my electorate. I will talk a little bit about that later. The main points associated with the implementation of this bill are that it moves Queenslanders’ working conditions into the 21st century. The industrial reforms contained in this bill for state and local government employees certainly pave the way for Queensland to deliver the most well regarded and responsive Public Service in the country. The reforms are part of our plan to revitalise front-line services by removing the overly complex provisions, such as those highlighted by Labor’s Health payroll debacle. There are over 100 industrial awards and agreements covering state government employees, which has created an administrative nightmare for workers and those trying to pay them correctly throughout the departments. These reforms will make awards easier to understand and set minimum safety net standards for core conditions, such as annual leave, sick leave, family leave and long service leave based on existing state and federal provisions—so things that are already in place. Award modernisation was undertaken five years ago by federal Labor and Queensland will follow a similar process to that used by the Fair Work Commission. The reforms will also streamline the bargaining arrangements for enterprise agreements. Certified agreements will also be extended from three to four years duration consistent with the national provisions of the Fair Work Act, and, I believe, giving more certainty to public servants and others. The new framework will enable highly paid senior staff whose remuneration exceeds $129,300 per year—that is right; $129,300 per year—the same high-income threshold that was set federally by the Fair Work Act to negotiate individual employment contracts. We are not talking about AO2s and AO3s here and not even AO8s; we are talking about highly paid senior executives. Most importantly, no-one can be forced to accept an individual employment contract, but we anticipate that most high earners will be keen to take advantage of the new arrangements available to them in the workplace. I now draw on comments that I made earlier with regard to entitlements under voluntary early redundancy programs. VERs as they are known have become very common through government departments and, indeed, some larger corporations and have been used extensively by governments of both persuasions in Queensland over the years. Redundancies are indeed a very constructive human resource management strategy in the modern workplace. They work in two ways. Firstly, they provide for workers whose positions are surplus to requirements and by nature they need to be and are generous. The Queensland government’s redundancy package for core public servants is based on two weeks wages for every year of service at a minimum of eight years pay for any worker up to a maximum of 52 weeks pay. On top of that there is also 12 weeks wages paid as a bonus. So the minimum a public servant will receive where they take a redundancy is 28 weeks pay. That is in excess of six months pay. That is quite considerable. Secondly, redundancies provide an attractive incentive to assist employers and employees to work together to come to more sustainable employee numbers in their workplace. I know many hardworking people in my community who were let go by their employer as a result of downturns and other reasons and they get very little, if anything at all. I sure everyone in this chamber will have either a friend, a person they know in the community or indeed a member of their
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3929 Other Legislation Amendment Bill family who has been let go by an employer with just a, ‘Sorry, I’m going to have to let you go. You’ll finish up Friday.’ In contrast, under the scheme public servants are well compensated. When you consider the tax concessions on top of the payouts, they can do very nicely—and good luck to them, because they deserve it. I know in my experience working in the Public Service as I did for many years that those people work very hard. When the Leader of the Opposition was transport minister under the Bligh regime she was certainly happy to hand out redundancies. But hang on: after she handed out many thousands of dollars and in the words of the member for Bundamba ‘sacked’ hundreds of workers, she quickly employed more and ended up with more departmental employees than when she started. What a redundancy process, what an embarrassment and how ridiculous. But then again, one would have to ask: was this a cleverly orchestrated Labor strategy to pretend to create new jobs? After all, it seems that Bligh’s empty promise of creating 100,000 new jobs if she was re-elected in 2009 was at the core of this strategy and I bet each minister of the Bligh government had a quota, including the now Leader of the Opposition. Mr Deputy Speaker, let us look at more hypocrisy, if you can stomach it. Just months after the 2009 election, Bligh and, as her agent, the Leader of the Opposition, saw to it that almost 10,000 workers were sacked from QR as part of Labor’s cruel forced privatisations. I know all too well as I was one of those workers. I was lucky as I was later to receive a redundancy but I can say not as generous as this government’s—not by a long way. I was fortunate and I lament for those left behind who will soon find themselves part of a system they had no say in becoming a part of. Labor wrongly offered all of the QR workers they sacked just $1,000 worth of shares—a long way from any sort of redundancy payment. That was 30 pieces of silver that I could just not bring myself to accept. For a start, they were not Labor’s shares to try to buy off people with; they belonged to Queenslanders. Why have Labor and the unions now put out a scare campaign saying that all that could be received would be 16 weeks pay? Under this bill, I suppose they are trying to get people to think that we are trying to cut them off at the knees. I have had workers contact me about this issue as it was something that they valued in the workplace. In reality, a redundancy is something that a lot of people can look forward to. I was very pleased to be able to tell them that this was all a lie. I received confirmation of this during the public hearings of the committee and I guess the Hansard can speak for itself. Interestingly, public servants later contacted me to advise that the unions had removed the claims from their website. How convenient. What about the people Labor and the unions hurt through unnecessary worry? They do not care as they are just collateral damage to them. It is just sad that the body which people tend to rely on would deceive them and hurt them in the process. I can remember having a member of my community phone me up as a result of union scaremongering. He and his wife had sat for a week stressing over whether he would have a job to go to. When he rang me, within five minutes I was able to confirm for him that indeed his position was safe. He asked me why would the unions do this to him. I said to him that I really did not know, he should go and ask his union organiser. These reforms will deliver a modern, flexible industrial relations framework that protects employees, reduces duplication, simplifies administration and better serves the people of Queensland. We must rise above the desperate lies and rhetoric from those opposite and get on with creating an even stronger and highly regarded Queensland Public Service. Furthermore, I believe that the government should conduct its business to the expectations of the wider Queensland community. I know that small business is not always able to provide support to people they have to let go, but certainly as a government we have the capacity to do so and it is right that we should. I am pleased to support this legislation and I congratulate the Attorney-General and his department for the work they have done. I also thank all who contributed to the debate through submissions to the committee. Although many of the submissions went against what we are saying, I know that some of them, including the firefighters union and the Police Union, were very, very realistic and genuine in what they tried to achieve and as a result our committee was able to consider their submissions in our recommendations. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (4.01 pm): I rise to contribute to this important debate on the Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. Members, let us be clear: this legislation is nothing but Newman’s Work Choices for doctors. It will undoubtedly be followed by Newman’s Work Choices for nurses and Newman’s Work Choices for all public sector employees. The LNP agenda behind this legislation is to destroy the industrial relations system that has served Queensland well for over 100 years. This government wants to take away the
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3930 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill hard earned rights of workers and to diminish their pay and conditions. Collective bargaining, awards and enterprise agreements provide for a negotiated process that balances the rights of workers to a fair day’s pay in a safe working environment with the interests of employers for a stable, skilled workforce. This legislation is the latest in a long line of attacks from this extreme right-wing LNP government: attacks on our public health system, attacks on our nurses and their union, attacks on allied health professionals and on hospital support staff. Now we have legislation directly attacking the pay and conditions of senior medical officers—yes, the doctors working in our public hospital and health services. The SMOs’ union, the Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation Queensland, have expressed their concerns that this legislation will force SMOs onto individual contracts, tearing up current workplace awards and enterprise agreements. They consider the 14-day consultation process for these ‘unprecedented’ changes to SMO employment conditions as nothing less than a farce. The AMA shares these concerns, stating, ‘These changes represent the most radical overhaul to your terms and conditions of employment in recent time.’ The Minister for Health yesterday trumpeted his shabby side deal with Ross Cartmill to protect the vested interests of visiting medical officers. VMOs work mainly in private practice. Individual contracts may well suit this self-defined elite of the medical profession. The professional interests of SMOs as salaried medical officers, the backbone of our public hospital system, are considerably different to those of VMOs. I would remind the minister that I will be closely watching for the publication of the second report of the Auditor-General on the right of private practice arrangements due later this month to review the compliance of VMOs with their current contractual obligations. It may very well make for interesting reading. The individual work contracts to be forced on senior medical officers, the salaried doctors, do not guarantee that their take-home pay will not be reduced. While the salaried medical officers may retain their current long service leave entitlements in this transition to Newman’s Work Choice contracts, other employment conditions are far less secure. There are key issues for SMOs to consider before signing these contracts. The AMA states, ‘Penalty rates are absorbed into nebulous tiered arrangements; no process for fair rostering of hours; no certainty around fatigue arrangements and working hours; and changes to remuneration will be determined arbitrarily and may result in doctors in similar positions being paid differently.’ Under this bill we may well find that the pay and employment conditions for doctors doing the very same work within the same hospital and between hospital and health services across the state will be considerably different. The draft contracts for SMOs currently contain no provisions for redundancy or for severance payment. HHS chief executives will now be able to amend or revise the terms of the contract at any time without notice through the issuing of a separate employment directive. So these contracts may, in fact, be worthless. The employer can change pay and can change conditions at any time without consultation. The SMOs will no longer have access to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission to fight unfair dismissals and legitimate industrial disputes will not be permitted. Such matters will need to be privately litigated via costly court proceedings. Have no doubt that this is Newman’s Work Choices. This is Newman’s Queensland. Shame on the LNP MPs who will vote for this later on. AMA Queensland and the salaried medical officers’ union consider that the process for implementing Work Choices contracts for Queensland’s 3,000 SMOs and 1,000 VMOs has been, ‘flawed process to date and will lead to a chaotic implementation and widespread inconsistency’. The department of health has estimated that each medical officer’s negotiation will require four hours in two-hour sessions. The AMA is concerned with the pace of this change, that the negotiation process will be disorganised and limited, forcing people to act quickly to make a decision—that is, the doctors. At this stage all 4,000 negotiations are to be completed by April with an implementation date of 1 July 2014. This adds up to 16,000 hours taken out of clinical care of seriously ill patients. This is Newman’s Work Choices. This is Newman’s Queensland. Shame on the LNP members in this parliament. I ask: if senior doctors have no protection in the workplace, what hope do the other health workers have? Tens of thousands of nurses, allied health professionals and clinical support staff will face the same threat of cancellation of their hard-won pay and conditions protected by existing enterprise agreements. Even the New Zealand Association of Salaried Medical Specialists Executive Director Ian Powell last week described the changes proposed in this bill as ‘draconian’. He said— This reactionary law would, if enacted, increase the power of the Government and health bureaucrats over hospital doctors.
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3931 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
This bill will discourage medical specialists from moving from other states to fill vacant jobs in our regional and rural hospitals, especially around Cairns where two urologists are currently reconsidering offers of employment at the Cairns Hospital. Watch for the middle finger of the urologists as they raise it in defiance of the LNP government, in a true Aussie way, to express their disgust at these laws. The LNP blueprint for health is a blueprint to Americanise our public hospital and health services. Profit-seeking corporations like Ramsay Health Care and the American owned Healthscope are likely to be running our new public hospitals on the Gold Coast and at Kawana. We will have to wait and see about co-payments, because patient options liaison officers are already asking patients to declare whether they have private health insurance and already billing officers are in place. It is just a disgrace. Newman’s Work Choices is a disgrace. But this is an LNP blueprint; it is an LNP blueprint for Newman’s Work Choices. However, the workers united will never be defeated and the workers and their families will come after every LNP member in this parliament that votes for it. Mr DILLAWAY (Bulimba—LNP) (4.11 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, which will reform the industrial relations arrangements for Queensland for the 21st century. This is in response to recommendations in both the Queensland Commission of Audit Report and the Blueprint for Better Healthcare in Queensland. I congratulate the Attorney-General for the introduction of this bill and acknowledge the work of my colleagues and the dedicated research team of the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee in examining the bill and the reporting process. This bill makes amendments to the current Industrial Relations Act 1999, which was recommended by the Commission of Audit to be updated to ensure it remain modern, flexible and relevant to the public sector. The bill provides an industrial relations framework that introduces the Queensland employment standards, a set of statutory minimum terms and conditions of employment that are nonnegotiable. The QES is largely based on the existing minimum conditions in the current Queensland legislation and the national employment standards contained in the Fair Work Act 2009. As an example, the QES standards for both redundancies and sick leave remain the same as the entitlements provided for in the existing IR Act. However, it is important to note that the bill increases the entitlement of eight days sick leave to 10 days. Currently, there are more than 100 industrial awards and agreements covering state and local government employees. As noted earlier by my colleagues, this bill provides for an award modernisation process that will reduce the number of awards in Queensland from a staggering 83 to between an estimated 20 to 40 awards. These new awards will provide a fair safety net of enforceable terms and conditions for the employment relationship, protecting the rights of the workers, and will only include matters that are not covered by legislation or public service directives. This reduces the duplication, will help make awards easier to understand and will simplify administration, thus ultimately better serving the people of Queensland. Our government’s goal is clear: we want the best public service in Australia and this bill is one of the building blocks in achieving just that. The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission will commence the awards modernisation process, which is anticipated to be completed throughout 2014. It should be noted that this award modernisation has been undertaken federally over the past five years under the former Labor federal government, and Queensland will follow a similar process to that undertaken by the Fair Work Commission. However, I do not recall the various unions marching on the Labor federal government in Canberra with concerns surrounding the contents of the NES or the modernisation of federal awards that have been undertaken during the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd prime ministership. Therefore, the hard workers of Queensland need to ask their union representatives and delegates why they now object to this process and not when the Labor federal government undertook a similar process. The IR framework consists of five elements and includes: Queensland employment standards that are the minimum employment standards for all employment in Queensland; an awards modernisation process to establish safety net awards; provision for certified industrial agreements that contain wages and matters linked directly to the employment relationship; streamlined arrangements for bargaining; and assisted conciliation and arbitration. This includes measures to reduce protracted disputation and disruption to service delivery and the introduction of specified time frames in which assisted conciliation and arbitration is to occur, and many features of the current bargaining framework remain unchanged in the bill. Where the bill introduces time frames within which the QIRC must complete assisted conciliation and arbitration, these streamlined arrangements for bargaining and taking protected industrial action are to ensure that industrial action reduces the
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3932 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill impact on services to the community. The fifth and final element of the industrial reform framework will introduce the ability to offer high-income guarantee contracts of employment to employees who earn more than $129,300, which once again draws on similar provisions that are found in the Fair Work Act 2009. The industrial reform framework containing the five elements will address inefficiencies in the negotiation of employment agreements and will deliver on the goal to provide a modern, flexible and responsive industrial relations system. Once again, and as expected, the union movement in particular has flocked to this legislation like moths to a flame. They are using it is a political football to create fear in the public service workforce. I will discuss some of the mistruths that the unions are citing to their members and, in effect, scaremongering. Firstly, we had submissions raising concerns about the annual leave cashing out provisions. Some of the concerns were valid, pertaining to a lack of leave remaining for workers in high stress roles if they cashed out all of their leave. However, the proposed amendments contained in section 71EG has specific requirements where there must be mutual agreement between the employer and employee, the employee must retain a minimum of four weeks leave after cashing out and each cashing out must have a separate agreement in writing. I would like the House to note that under the NES at a federal level you can also cash out annual leave as long as you are covered by an award. The benefit of our QES is that you do not actually have to be on an award to be able to put section 71EG into action. The Queensland Teachers Union expressed concern around long service leave provisions and that the bill introduced longer time frames. Again, this is misinformation by the union as it is important to note that the proposed amendments in section 71HB actually replicate the existing long service leave provisions in the current IR Act. The Queensland Nurses Union made a lot of claims, including that the bill before the House was an attack on the doctrine of the separation of powers. However, the award modernisation process is a one-off and mirrors the approach adopted federally. The department also advised the committee that the ability of a ministerial directive was again taken from the Fair Work Act. The Queensland Nurses Union also raised concerns that nurses and midwives required to work on a public holiday, such as Christmas 2013, would be paid only at a base rate and not at the current award penalty rates due to the award modernisation provisions, which were not scheduled to be implemented until 2014. I am sure it would surprise members of this House to know that, again, this is not a correct accusation by the Queensland Nurses Union. The transitional arrangements of this bill provide that an employee’s pre-reform award will continue to apply to them until such time as their pre-reform award is modernised. To assist the Queensland Nurses Union and those opposite, section 8AA of the bill provides that chapter 2 of the IR Act will continue to apply until such time as a modern award instrument is enacted. I was going to discuss the union misrepresentations on the redundancy provisions, but I note that the member for Ipswich West gave a very good and detailed account of that, so I will just highlight that, in effect, nothing has actually changed with the redundancy provisions. Of course, the unions like to instil fear in the workers they are supposed to be representing. I will be interested to see what redundancy provisions will be provided for the 20-plus employees who will forced to leave the Together union’s HQ, as we heard earlier today. Another area of concern raised by the unions was the time frames provided for conciliation and arbitration. I touched on this before, but I want to reiterate to those opposite and to those unions with concerns that the provisions in this bill enable the parties to agree to extend the conciliation period over and above the 14 days if they so choose. I also note that the vice president of the QIRC can extend the 90-day arbitration period if they believe more time is warranted. It is smart to have time- bound negotiations, but also completely satisfactory to have the ability to provide extensions as contained in the bill. Another issue raised in the submissions and during the hearings was the new provision that prohibits an employer from deducting an employee’s membership subscription for an industrial association. I know why the unions are concerned, and they should be. But this provision in no way precludes an employee belonging to a union. In fact, the employee has every opportunity to make alternate arrangements, like a direct debit from their nominated bank account to the industrial association. I completely reject any proposition that the reforms are an attack on workers’ rights or that this bill is Work Choices for Queensland or to accept the unions’ claim that this bill does not harmonise with the Fair Work Act. There are many aspects that do. I believe the award modernisation proposed
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3933 Other Legislation Amendment Bill in this bill meets the needs of workers and employers in the Queensland industrial relations system that is required for the 21st century. The bill creates an industrial relations system with a strong focus on the employment relationship, provides a fair safety net of enforceable employment conditions and promotes efficiency, innovation and productivity improvements in the workplace. I commend the Attorney-General, once again, for introducing these reforms that will help Queensland deliver the most respected and responsive public service in Australia. I recommend the bill to the House. Mr BYRNE (Rockhampton—ALP) (4.21 pm): I do not think anyone is going to be surprised by my speech in this debate. I rise to strongly oppose this bill. In my view, this is Work Choices on steroids—Queensland style. It is a tory government sticking it to the public sector once again. Again in this House we see the same attitude from this government. I continue to be amazed by the ideological extremes of the Premier and his government. It takes a special effort for a conservative government to have both the police union and the AMA up in arms about a piece of legislation. I continue to be amazed at the eagerness of the LNP backbenchers to follow this Premier and Attorney-General over the cliff. As for the previous speaker, the member for Bulimba, I think he holds a 0.5 per cent margin. So this may well be his swan song in terms of supporting this legislation. I continue to be amazed by the eagerness with which this government assails the rights and conditions of working Queenslanders. Having been involved in the limited scrutiny that this bill underwent, I continue to be amazed at the absolute lack of understanding of LNP members about the lives of working Queenslanders and how current industrial relations relationships are actually developed. It is obvious to me that there is a very limited understanding of industrial relations as a subject within this government. All they understand is dictate. So we see here today the LNP government basically rushing through extreme and damaging legislation. As I put on the record in my dissenting report, this is nothing but an ideological attack on working Queenslanders and their families. This will strip the take-home pay of those families. It will strip workers’ rights and severely limit the powers of employees and employers to include many issues and conditions in their enterprise agreements, even when those employees and employers agree. I cannot believe some of the drivel that we have heard in this debate so far. The Attorney-General is kidding himself if he thinks he can get away with standing in the parliament and saying with a straight face that this legislation is harmonisation with the Fair Work Act. I am a member of the legal affairs committee that conducted a couple of hours of departmental briefing and half a day of public hearing into this comprehensive and extreme legislation. Even within that very limited investigation, the committee was provided with clear statements from the Attorney-General’s own departmental officers that numerous and significant elements of this bill bear no resemblance whatsoever to the Fair Work Act currently in place federally. In fact, the Attorney-General’s own departmental officers gave evidence to the committee that some significant elements of this bill bear no resemblance to any legislation in any other jurisdiction in this country. I said in my dissenting report that I actually feel sorry for the departmental staff involved in this legislation. I am sure the Attorney-General was provided with advice that this legislation will have wide-ranging unintended consequences when it comes to the day-to-day dealings in what had developed into a modern, sophisticated, largely cooperative industrial relations arena. Instead, we have an extreme Premier and Attorney-General who are obviously determined to use their huge numbers in this parliament to rush through and ram through an extreme agenda that they did not even have the courtesy to mention at the last election. Who can forget the words that ‘the public sector has nothing to fear’. They have turned out to be nothing more than weasel words. It is an absolute disgrace. The LNP government is going further than any other state or federal government has gone when it comes to destroying fairness in workplace agreements. It is almost as if the Attorney-General has bypassed his departmental advisors and simply had lunch with right-wing, HR Nicholls Society buddies and then convinced the gullible backbenchers that it is in their interests to support this bill. What drivel! On the back of previous IR bills passed by this government and the job losses past and to come, I can confidently predict the loss of an entire public sector vote for the conservative government.
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3934 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
It is timely to note that it was the Attorney-General who was so proud about introducing legislation about lying to the parliament. So I ask the Attorney-General to put his money where his mouth is. I know that he has advisers listening to this debate who will surely provide him with notes about the issues that were raised. Here are specific questions that I ask the Attorney-General to address in his reply. I note that the minister will be bound by the parliament’s rules about lying. So I assume we can expect a full and wholesome response. My questions include: does the Attorney-General seriously expect the public sector to believe that this legislation is implementing the same regime as the Fair Work Act? What sections of this legislation are consistent with the Fair Work Act and what sections are inconsistent? If the Attorney-General suggests that there are too many clauses to deal with in this manner, perhaps he should have provided more time for public consultation and committee hearings on the bill. I also ask the Attorney-General to address in his reply: can he admit that not even the meagre protections that appeared in Work Choices—that dreadful legislation—are included in this legislation? Which individuals or conservative interest groups did the Attorney-General meet with in relation to this agenda? We know the Attorney-General will be on his feet for quite a while—he usually does not need any encouragement to speak at some length—so let us wait and see if he can actually address some of those specific questions. As was pointed out at the public hearing, this detailed legislation has been pushed through by this government with grossly inadequate time, consideration and consultation. We have seen it again in this debate. This government wants no public attention given to this extreme legislation. Thank goodness for the member for Redcliffe—another convenient distraction for this government to drag public and media attention away from this bill. Even the grossly inadequate public discussion and the very limited time that was provided to consider this bill—even the couple of hours of departmental briefings and the half day of public hearings—provided clear and overwhelming evidence of the negative impacts that this bill will bring. The vast majority of evidence provided to that committee opposed this bill. As a member of parliament, I value the importance of being able to rise and contribute in this House. As I said in my statement to the committee, it will be a test of the Attorney-General’s commitment to this legislation whether the government tries to subvert the time for debate and actually lets the full debate occur in this House. It will be a test of every single LNP member in this House whether they actually get onto their feet and defend this outrageous legislation. I will try not to laugh when I hear some of the oncers get up and repeat the rubbish lines that they have been fed by the Premier and the government. With this sort of legislation, any government member with less than six per cent margin is gone at the next election. I can assure them of that—gone. It will also be interesting to see how many LNP MPs are cunning enough to avoid having to put on the record a ridiculous position because they can be sure to have those words repeated to their public sector constituents very loudly and very often, particularly in the next election campaign. Let me be clear for those MPs: whether you admit it or not, you have failed to stand up to the Premier and the Attorney-General and are going along with the most extreme industrial relations legislation that Australia has seen. That is what this is, whether you like it or not. And rest assured that when the voting cards are in and your names are on the record of voting for this bill, the Labor opposition will be reminding voters on the Gold Coast and in Logan, Ipswich, Brisbane, Toowoomba, Central Queensland, Townsville, Cairns, Mount Isa and everywhere in between of what position you have taken on this bill. Not content with just over 20,000 public servants being given the axe, now the LNP have to attack the take-home pay of decent, hardworking Queenslanders for no sound reason. Politics aside, it is just plain bad public policy, and everybody with the slightest appreciation of industrial relations knows it. The workers of Queensland will be the first to feel the pain. The communities that rely on decent services will all lose in the end. The police, members of the Queensland Ambulance Service, corrective services workers and firefighters will all remember this legislation. They have long memories when it comes to a tax on their take-home pay and conditions. We have seen how this government has held up their well-deserved pay rises while the government gave itself huge pay rises. The ambulance officers, paramedics,
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3935 Other Legislation Amendment Bill firefighters and the police have worked especially hard over the last few years dealing with floods, cyclones and now bikies, and what is the reward for that effort? Corrective services staff are watching the jail population swell following cuts to worthwhile early intervention programs, with cell double-ups increasingly putting their safety at risk. The LNP fail to understand how their own employees’ lives will be affected by this legislation. Emergency service employees have factored these award conditions into their actual wages. These award conditions are how they pay for their mortgages and bills and care for their children. For others it is the cream on the crop that enables family holidays and the ability to plan for their retirements. Massive attacks on these penalties and conditions proposed by the LNP will mean that houses will be sold and children will be forced to go without. Workers get upset when you attack them but do not forgive you when you attack their children and their future. Here is a litmus test. I have had two public sector employees privately approach me in the last two weeks—one a teacher and one a nurse, both conservative voters by their own admission for most of their lives. I can assure the House that after finding out a bit about this legislation that is not the case anymore. During the recent EB negotiations, the main objection of unions was the attacks on their conditions, not their pay as has been made out by some in the media. This bill will finish the work of the LNP, going around through the backdoor and attacking the penalty rates and other hard won conditions of emergency service workers. To rub salt in the wound, they find that the member ramming the legislation through the House is the Attorney-General, whose only work experience prior to being in this House was extremely limited. That the Attorney-General will use our police to fight against bikies and then stab them in the back the next day is astonishing. That is the way they see it, as do the firies. That is without their overt hostility to the Keelty review, which they all recognise as being garbage. All levels of services reflect that view privately to me. This bill of course allows for the rollout of the Costello report and some of the disastrous recommendations of the Keelty review into emergency services. This bill sets out a framework that will slowly but surely erode the emergency services that Queenslanders deserve. We will spend years mopping up the mess by the time the LNP wrecking ball is finished with industrial relations in this state. Where is the government’s response to the Keelty review anyway? This is twice now that I have called for a whole-of-government response. Clearly it is never going to be provided by this government by the look of the way things are going in this last sitting week of the year. This is the one thing that emergency services workers need to know about—that is, the Keelty review. The three authors of the report, including Mr Keelty, were seconded to the Public Service Commission upon handing the report to the government. Given Mr Keelty’s view that he thought firefighters were overpaid, I doubt that at the Public Service Commission they were working out how to deliver decent wages and conditions for emergency services workers. Let us look at the concerns of the police union for a moment. Despite the comments made by the member for Ipswich in this debate, the police union is not happy with this bill. On the issue of cashing out annual leave, the police union said— The concern is that these Officers who work in highly stressful positions will not receive sufficient quality time off, which will lead to negative health outcomes. They are worried about increases in mental health problems of police officers. That is shameful and will end up costing Queensland more money in the long run. The police union is worried about reductions in annual leave for non-shiftworkers that was flagged during the last EB negotiations. The police union is concerned about cuts to public holiday rates. They stated— By their very nature Public Holidays can be some of the busiest shifts for Police Officers. To reduce Public Holiday rates to ordinary time is intrinsically unfair and will cause considerable angst amongst QPUE members. How the member for Ipswich can interpret this as positive and in support of this legislation is beyond explanation. Will any LNP member stand up here today and explain why they think any person should work on a public holiday and not receive penalties? The union have concerns about contract positions being spread throughout the service. They believe that it may reduce experienced police working in Indigenous and rural communities, and rightly so. They are worried police officers will refuse to serve in these hard-to-fill positions, preferring to work in secure, permanent positions in Brisbane, by ducking under the government’s threshold to avoid being placed on a contract. Firefighters are very worried about the limitation on industrial action, the breaches of international employment agreements, and restrictions on interim wage increases and backdated wage rises. I am pleased that common sense seems to have prevailed with respect to at least the
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3936 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill auxiliary firefighters award. I am led to believe that the Attorney-General has been brought into line by one of the more experienced members of the government. Ambulance officers and paramedics are also concerned, quite rightly, about fatigue management provisions, reductions in overtime rates, the removal of the right to negotiate a fair contract, and being made redundant and their jobs privatised. I challenge every member of the LNP who stands with an emergency services worker for a photo opportunity to actually ask them what it is like to work on a public holiday. Ask them what it is like to miss out on watching their kids open their Christmas presents. Ask them what it is like to sit at home by themselves on Christmas day because their family have gone interstate for holidays to visit the in-laws because they have had to work the night shift. Ask them how many New Year’s Eves they have worked in a row and what the workload is like during that night shift when everybody is out partying on the streets. Ask a corrective services officer how the prisons operate over the Christmas holiday period when the tensions are high. I challenge them to work a shift with the ambos, like I did, or face what ambos are faced with on every shift and tell them that the penalties they are getting are not deserved on public holidays. I can assure the LNP that I will be raising these issues at every available opportunity so the message is clear to the public and the public sector: Labor opposes this bill. I will be telling members of the public, ‘If you don’t want to see your rights, wages and workplace entitlements stripped away, vote for us. If you don’t care about your take-home pay and seeing your families, vote for an extreme and arrogant LNP.’ I will be pointing out that it is the LNP who claim to have the interest of family values at heart but forget to tell the community that these concerns stop when it comes to being able to provide for your family. The Premier recently told police officers that they should stop doing specials on their days off to earn extra money and spend more time with their families. The response to this comment proves how out of touch with modern families the Newman government is. And boy oh boy did the local police in my area let me know what they thought about the Premier’s opinion! If Queenslanders do not fit within this perfect structure of the LNP’s view of the world, the LNP simply does not understand them. The Police Union response says it all. It states— By the by, Mr Newman, please don’t tell us how to live our lives, and we won’t tell you how to run the state, because you won’t like what we have to say. Where do you get off saying police should spend more time at home with their families?
Your obviously antiquated view of the world where families are mum, dad, and the kids does not quite fit the reality that is the modern family. I know a number of police officers who have their children every second week.
So every other week, they try to do specials to get extra money to do something significant on the week they spend time with their children. Is it not better to keep these officers busy rather than sitting at home in an empty house? I again quote from the Police Journal, from an article written by Mr Glenn Terry, who represents the headquarters and State Crime Operations Command. It states— It is surely not expected by QPS senior executive, nor the government, that a continual loss of both monetary benefits and promotional opportunities will have no affect on morale generally, and consequently grossly denigrate employee output and efficiency overall.
The feeling among police is one of deepening despair and resignation regarding their current positions and future prospects. That is not the mindset of police generally, but what is being propagated through ongoing organisational instability. I will conclude by making these comments. We, the ALP opposition, absolutely oppose this legislation, as does most of the public sector. This bill will be worth at least 10 seats to us at the next election. So I say to the government: keep up the good work! At this rate we will be back in office very soon and we will be able to thank these tory ideologues who possess no respect whatsoever for the public sector in any way, shape or form. Shame on you all! Mr WATTS (Toowoomba North—LNP) (4.41 pm): I would like to speak on the Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. Despite what the member for Rockhampton might think, the bill has a number of policy objectives. The main objective is to reform Queensland’s industrial relations framework to make sure it meets a modern, vibrant, flexible and responsive legislative framework. As we went through the committee process, many things were brought up. Before we get to some of those, I would like to discuss the clear difference between the LNP government and a Labor government. We promised to revitalise front-line services. In order to do that, we need to have a modern, flexible and responsive industrial relations framework. We told the people of Queensland that they deserve the best Public Service in the country. That is what this legislation is trying to deliver. It
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3937 Other Legislation Amendment Bill is trying to make sure that a balance is struck between the Public Service and its requirements for employment, and the Public Service that the Queenslanders out there who pay their taxes diligently deserve. This will bring some sensible balance back into the discussion. I now turn to a couple of recommendations from the Commission of Audit which, again, are reasons we are here debating this legislation. The report states— Awards continue to provide the basis for public sector wages and conditions; however, only matters not covered by legislation or public service directives should be included. Why would it say something like that? A clear example would be to go to the 24,000 possible pay combinations within the Health payroll. Why would we want some of these things to be simplified? It would be to ensure we have, again, a flexible, modern, responsive industrial relations system where we actually pay the staff, something that Labor failed to do as they implemented their new pay system. We value the staff because many on this side of the House come from private business in which we have employed people ourselves. We know that the most important resource any business has—and that includes the business of the Public Service, who are here to serve the people of Queensland—is their staff. Their staff is to be valued and looked after; they are not to be dictated to by terms and conditions that they may not even want. We have a situation where people earning over $129,300 have terms and conditions that they do not want. In talking to the various people who look after the health department it was interesting to hear that none of the staff going to regional Queensland is on any of the pay scales; they are all acting as locums. So communities in regional Queensland are not free to negotiate terms and conditions with a doctor who might choose to live there; they do not have the flexibility in that negotiation to come up with a contract that will suit that individual. Instead, under the current system where there is no flexibility, if they cannot find anybody they get locums. So the community does not have people living there. I was curious as to why doctors will not go into these communities. There is substantial pay to be earned. It really comes down to the fact that the local health and hospital board has no flexibility in developing a contract that might actually suit an individual to go and live and work in that community. That is what this bill will do. It will introduce some flexibility and an opportunity for people earning over the $129,300 threshold to be able to negotiate a favourable contract that would encourage them to go and live regionally. The bill sets out a new framework. As I said before, it is modern, flexible and responsive and it will allow for negotiation of employment agreements, terms and conditions. We promised to revitalise front-line services, and that is exactly what we are doing. Within this framework we have set up what are considered the Queensland employment standards. This is a minimum legislative standard that will apply here in Queensland to people who fall under this legislation. Again, we hear a whole bunch of scaremongering by Labor and the unions. The key one was that it is stripping away people’s redundancy terms and conditions. I wish to put on the record, on the Hansard—and when the member for Rockhampton comes up to Toowoomba to tell people how we look after the Public Service I would like him to mention this—that the most generous redundancy conditions that have ever been offered by a government in Queensland have been offered by the Newman government in Queensland—this big, bad employer who does not want to look after people. The most generous conditions ever offered for redundancy have been offered by this government, not by a Labor government. Clearly, some of the scaremongering that they go on with is just not based on fact. Of course, we are talking about minimum conditions. Let us look at the sorts of things that we would find to be permitted content in a wage agreement and an enterprise agreement. They will be such terrible things as the types of engagement; the allowances including expenses, skill based allowances and disability allowances; annualised salary arrangements; overtime rates; penalty rates; arrangements for when work is performed outside of rostered hours; superannuation; antidiscrimination and equal opportunities; arrangements for taking leave; arrangements for bonuses and incentive based payments; continuous improvement initiatives; productivity improvement initiatives; salary sacrifice arrangements; uniforms, including personal protective equipment; and, of course, wages. Again, there has been a whole lot of scaremongering about all the terms and conditions that cannot be included in this legislation but what would people expect to be in the legislation? They would expect things such as wages, opportunities to get bonuses, continuous improvement initiative bonuses would be included, and they are. Surprise, surprise, our side of politics recognises the most valuable resource we have in the Public Service is, in fact, the individuals who work in the Public Service. It will be our intention to not only pay them on time but to also have this framework set up so
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3938 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill that unions are not able to drag out negotiations such as we have seen with the core Public Service, who have been denied an increase because of the union’s lack of desire to negotiate a sensible outcome. If the member for Rockhampton wants to come up to my electorate and tell the core Public Service, ‘My union buddies and I are the reason why you haven’t been able to get a pay rise’, I can only encourage him to do so. I would be quite happy for him to come to my electorate and explain to people that he does not want them to have any flexibility and he is the reason why they have not got their pay rise. I look forward to him coming up and letting people know where he stands on these issues. We spoke about how some of these changes might affect regional councils. One of the most significant difficulties regional councils have is attracting long-term employees to work at high levels in their council areas. This framework will give them the flexibility to individualise contracts and set up terms and conditions which entice highly paid individuals who will contribute to their communities in the long term. Councils must be able to offer contracts of employment which are attractive and not a bunch of unwanted, union negotiated terms and conditions which are primarily centred on the south-east corner and do service the needs of people in regional Queensland at all. It was interesting to note that, when I questioned some of the people who gave evidence at the committee hearing about it, they said there would be absolutely no downside for anybody covered by these awards who lives in the south-east corner in introducing that flexibility. Opposition members interjected. Mr WATTS: We have things that will be in the QES as minimum standards. It is interesting to hear the Labor members talk about the things that will not be in there, but we are addressing minimum wages, annual leave, personal leave, parental leave, long service leave, public holidays, jury leave, notice of termination and redundancy. All of these things will be captured there as minimums to ensure that going forward nobody who is covered by any of these awards will be disadvantaged. One issue came up during the committee hearings that I was particularly interested in, and that was the negotiations that have been going on for auxiliary firefighters. I was concerned that there had been negotiations that had gone on for a long time and that a small piece of this bill might in fact capture and preclude some of those negotiations from bearing fruit. I am pleased to note the amendment that was suggested by the committee has been accepted. This amendment will ensure that auxiliary firefighters and some of the Queensland Police Service who were potentially going to be inadvertently captured by a section of this act will now be protected and looked after. You hear a lot of rhetoric that it was not useful, it was rushed and it was this and that. In actual fact, for those people such as the firefighters union and the Queensland Police Union who came in good faith and told us of some of the difficulties they had with the bill, we have been able to make recommendations to ensure that the bill will satisfy their requirements. I think that is a good outcome, and that shows that the committee system is active, is working and is being used effectively. Several unions turned up whose opening statements were so long, protracted and one-eyed that in actual fact we could not get any useful information out of them at all about how we might make recommendations to improve the legislation. They did not come to the public hearing with a view to try and improve the legislation, or help the Public Service achieve a good outcome, or ensure that the Public Service was treated fairly; they came there with the specific objective of stirring up trouble for the Public Service. This is the same Public Service, by the way, who, because of their inability to negotiate, still has not had a pay rise over a period of time. These unions came with the specific objective of making statements that could be quoted in here by members and then probably used in some publicity campaign to try and ensure that people are fearful and therefore sign up for union membership. All I can say to the Public Service is this: the LNP government certainly values what you do. For those unfortunate people that we had to make redundant due to the complete inability of the Labor government to manage its budget, its gross overspending, its complete incompetence and its waste of the public’s money, that is why we unfortunately had to cut the Public Service down: because it had spent too much and left us with an interest bill. But when we did that, we ensured we had the most generous redundancy packages that have ever been offered by the Queensland Public Service. That really answers the questions that people might have. Does the Newman government value the Public Service? Clearly we do. Did we want to make people redundant? Clearly we did not. Did we inherit a mess in Queensland from those who had been running the show? Absolutely we did.
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3939 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
We have made great strides going forward in ensuring people are paid, that they are paid on time, and that we have a Public Service that Queensland can both afford and be proud of. We will continue to make sure that our Public Service is treated fairly and equitably. This legislation will be in the interests of the people who work in the Public Service and not the unions who purport to represent them, when in actual fact they cannot even get them a pay rise because they will not negotiate. I support the Attorney-General in bringing this legislation forward. I am sure that any sensible, thinking Queenslander will see that having a modern and flexible operating system with a responsive set of terms and conditions for industrial relations is in the best interests of making sure Queensland has the very best Public Service of any of the states in Australia. That is in stark contrast with what Labor left us, particularly in the area of health. I might finish by mentioning one example in my area at Baillie Henderson Hospital and the Toowoomba Base Hospital. The crazy situation we have under Labor’s lunatic industrial relations regime and carefully negotiated union agreements is that two nurses doing identical jobs at exactly the same time on exactly the same ward will be doing it under different pay terms and conditions. Just to be clear: their qualifications are identical; the work they are doing is identical; the location is identical—yet they have been captured under two different industrial instruments. This means that the payroll officer then has to work out which job each one was doing when and where and under which terms and conditions to try and ensure they get paid. Any sensible person can see that a mental health nurse working at Baillie Henderson on a particular ward at a particular time and a mental health nurse working at the Toowoomba Base Hospital on a particular ward at a particular time—if they are working side by side on the same ward at the same time with the same qualifications—should be paid the same amount. The industrial instrument should not allow for the terms and conditions to be different and be some mathematical equation that a poor payroll officer has to try and work out. At the end of the day, the situation that we have been left with is a nonsense. We have been left with an industrial relations mess in the Public Service which is no surprise; because we know they clearly could not run the Public Service effectively and efficiently. I am very pleased to stand here and support this bill. I look forward to the member for Rockhampton coming to Toowoomba and telling the Public Service the reason why they have not received their pay rise and why they should not have any flexibility in their employment terms and conditions. I look forward to him travelling out to some of these areas that are desperate for local government engineers and telling councils why they cannot negotiate terms and conditions with an engineer being paid over $129,300. I look forward to him coming to regional Queensland and explaining some of that to the people who will benefit from this legislation: our local councils and the people who charge Queenslanders rates to run their local councils effectively and efficiently. Giving them an industrial award framework that allows them to do that is critically important. To the nurses who are living and working up in Toowoomba, I think it is nothing but common sense to give you more flexibility and the opportunity to be paid the same as the person you are looking at across the bed. I commend the Attorney-General for the bill. I look forward very much to its implementation. I hope the people of Queensland understand quite clearly the objective that we have, as we promised at the last election, is to revitalise front-line services, and to do that you need a modern, responsive and flexible industrial instrument. That is exactly what this is, and Queensland will end up with the best Public Service in Australia because we will make sure that we pass legislation that will ensure that that can be achieved. Mrs SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (5.00 pm): The Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill is a disgraceful attack on workers’ rights and conditions. The fact that the words ‘fair work’ are included in the title is a gross misnomer. Indeed, this bill has no semblance of fairness, strips away workers’ hard-won conditions and is totally skewed towards the employer. It leaves employees totally at the mercy of their employer with regard to their work rosters, slashes penalty rates and certain allowances, reduces redundancy entitlements and is an assault on workers and their families. I remind this House that it is the union movement which has been responsible for so much of our workplace safety regulations, our working hours and work conditions and allowances; has stood beside workers who have been unfairly treated or unfairly dismissed; and has ensured dangerous workplace situations are addressed. And, may I add, workers’ pay and conditions have been afforded to all, not simply those who support and pay their union dues. All workers should be outraged by this bill. It is very clear that the object of this government is to so curtail the activities of our unions that they are rendered impotent to represent workers. We have now seen our Public Service plundered, with so many individuals and families absolutely devastated. And it is ongoing.
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3940 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
This bill is an assault on our essential services, such as doctors, nurses, police, ambulance officers and firefighters, who may be ordered to work on public holidays with the loss of penalty rates. With doctors and nurses being moved on to individual contracts and issues around fatigue and work hours, it is little wonder that morale in our hospitals is at an all-time low. It is also clear that with further privatisation there will be many more job cuts. In our schools we are going to see larger class sizes. Coupled with the now unknown funding, particularly for schools in lower socioeconomic areas, where national partnership agreements have had a profoundly positive effect, it will be a travesty if the gains made over the past four years are now to gradually ebb away. The education minister’s statement this morning did nothing to allay the fears of my principals and teachers, who have worked so hard to advance the level of attainment in our schools. Within my constituency are many workers who are on casual or part-time hours in such services as security, teacher aides, cleaners and wardsmen—which are all in the lower paid category. With penalty rates and allowances now cut, many will take a cut of income that these already disadvantaged workers can ill afford. When pure economics takes hold of a government, with little regard for individuals and families and their welfare, our system has become bereft of what used to be just plain decency and a desire to lift everyone to a level where we all have the ability to provide the basics for our people, for our families and children. This bill is an attack on workers and we will oppose it. Mr KNUTH (Dalrymple—KAP) (5.04 pm): I rise to speak to the Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. The explanatory notes to the bill state— An objective of the Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 is to reform Queensland’s industrial relations framework to ensure it continues to meet the needs of employers and employees operating within the State’s industrial relations jurisdiction.
The Bill responds to the recommendations of the Queensland Commission of Audit (COA); and the Blueprint for better healthcare in Queensland. In particular the COA recommends: • The Industrial Relations Act 1999 be updated to ensure it is modern, flexible and relevant to the public sector; ... • Awards continue to provide the basis for public sector wages and conditions; however only matters not covered by legislation or public service directives should be included. The number of awards that apply in the public sector should be significantly reduced (Recommendation 131); I have many concerns. For some reason or another there needs to be a massive change made to the Queensland Industrial Relations Act. We have seen mass sackings over the years. This has concerned many people right across Queensland, not only public servants. John Howard won a lot of support from blue-collar workers, especially when he took a strong stance on the boats when he stopped the Tampa. The then Queensland opposition leader, Peter Beattie, was sympathetic to the boat-people cause and backed the boats. A lot of blue-collar workers at that time perceived this to be a betrayal of the Labor movement. As a result, John Howard won a lot of support. The Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill is probably worse than Work Choices. Work Choices impacted so heavily right across this state. We saw a $50 million advertising campaign. We saw a 700-page piece of legislation. I could not fathom why anyone would possibly want to go so far. John Howard lost his seat as a result of this massive campaign. Much of this bill relates to some of the issues John Howard was passionately pursuing. If he was not determined to have a massive change, he would not have had the massive $50 million advertising campaign. As we read through this bill we feel great concern. We see workers’ rights to strike stripped. That is very important, because the working-class people do not really have much. The average worker will spend all his life paying off his house and by the time he dies he might end up with a new car, and that is about it. Just one little pay rise—a pay rise of $3 a week—is very important to him. To have the right to strike and the right to collectively bargain taken from him goes against the fundamental principles this country fought very hard for. I believe that the Industrial Relations Commission must be independent from government. To more closely align the Industrial Relations Commission with what the government wants takes away what we fought for over the years. This piece of legislation is very dangerous. I mention also the right of entry. I think this country needs to work with small business, but it also needs to work with unions. Small business is the backbone of this country. If every small business across this state was able to employ one person, we would solve the unemployment problem.
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3941 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
There needs to be a balance, but this is not balanced. This is going too far one way in the opposite direction. I cannot understand why we have to significantly change this. I only recently talked to working-class railway employees from Townsville to Mount Isa, and they have great concerns and fear for their jobs. However, they are more fearful of the direction that the LNP is going, especially as it is in part agreeing to the possibility of outsourcing their jobs and perhaps even selling or leasing the Mount Isa line from Townsville to Mount Isa linking the ports. There is great concern from the Public Service that saw 16,000 sacked. There is also great concern in that small programs have been removed. For example, there is the closure of the Healthy Lifestyle Program and the cutting of mowing vouchers for pensioners. As members might remember, at that time politicians passionately pushed to give themselves a $57,000 pay rise. This harmonisation bill is to give this legislation closer unity with the federal government act, but the workers out there are scared and they are frightened. If a worker’s right to strike is removed and the right of entry is removed and if unions are not able to negotiate in terms of fighting for the workers, then there will not be employment in this state. I just cannot support this bill and I am concerned about how far it is going, especially with regard to workers’ rights. Miss BARTON (Broadwater—LNP) (5.11 pm): This afternoon I rise to speak to the Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. As a member of the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee, I had the opportunity to participate in a very detailed examination of this bill. The primary recommendation of the committee was that this bill be passed, and I note that there were another two recommendations which the Attorney in his second reading address indicated that the government supported. As part of its inquiry into the bill, the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee sought and received submissions from 35 individuals or organisations. A public briefing where committee members were able to ask questions of officials from the Department of Justice and Attorney-General was followed by a public hearing where various submitters were given the opportunity to expand further on their written submissions and committee members were able to ask questions and seek clarification of some issues. There are many elements of this particular amendment bill, and I do not seek to canvass all aspects in my contribution. My colleagues who have gone before me have done an excellent job of doing so, but there are just a couple that I would like to touch on. This suite of reforms is a response to the Queensland Commission of Audit and the Blueprint for Better Healthcare in Queensland. This amendment bill will bring Queensland working conditions into the 21st century. Award modernisation is not a new process. Indeed, the former Rudd-Gillard government went through the process and the Queensland process is similar to that used by the Fair Work Commission. The reforms that are contained in this amendment bill will result in a modern, flexible industrial relations framework that will protect Queenslanders. The current system is complex. It has resulted in much confusion. It has created an administrative nightmare, it has stifled innovation and it has impeded service delivery. The reforms that are being introduced by the Attorney will make awards easier to understand and in these reforms we are specifying what can or must be included and what may not be included in an award. I believe that this will be positive for the relevant sectors which, in turn, will be good for jobs. Part of these reforms includes that highly paid senior employees will now be on individual contracts. There was a suggestion made by Andrew Turner from the AMA at the public hearing that Queensland VMOs— visiting medical officers—and SMOs—senior medical officers—will up stumps, so to speak. I was pleased to see a statement released yesterday by the Minister for Health, the Hon. Lawrence Springborg and the honourable member for Southern Downs, which stated that the new draft contracts had received a tick of approval from the VMOs. There are a couple of other things that were raised in the public hearing that I wanted to address. The Queensland Nurses Union falsely claimed that nurses and midwives who work on public holidays would not receive the current penalty rates. Its concern was that new modern awards would not be in place before the Christmas period. That is simply false and wrong. Until the new modern award comes into effect, employees will be entitled to penalty rates and other conditions contained in the current award. If nurses do not receive penalty rates on public holidays, it is the fault of the Queensland Nurses Union. The Queensland Teachers Union claimed at the public hearing that redundancy payments would be capped at 16 weeks. This was something that the President of the Queensland Council of Unions, John Battams, has been bandying about in the media. He said that it was part of a plan to cut jobs. John Battams did not appear before the committee at the public hearing, but John Martin representing the Queensland Council of Unions did so. At the public hearing I put to him that the
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3942 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill statements made by Mr Battams were scaremongering. I would also suggest that Mr Battams is a conspiracy theorist, because it has been made quite clear through answers from departmental officials upon questioning from the member for Ipswich West that 16 weeks is merely the minimum standard and there are directives in place which provide for payments in excess of 16 weeks and up to 52 weeks, dependent on the length of employment. I also particularly want to touch on the changes that are being made with regard to applications for trading hours orders. Part of these reforms will allow for applications for trading hours orders to be heard by a single commissioner. Currently, they must be heard by three. It is well known that I have a background in retail, having worked for both large and small retailers through high school and in my early years at university. As such, I take a very active interest in any changes that are being made to trading hours and other developments in that area. As detailed in its submission, the National Retail Association supports the amendments that we are making in this space. The changes that we are making will allow for applications to be heard expeditiously. We have a situation currently in Queensland where the delays in hearing an application can be in excess of 12 months. The National Retail Association in its submission highlighted many applications where there has been a significant delay, and one of the delays that it highlighted was with regard to an application that is currently on foot for an order to be heard regarding an establishment in Toowong. That application was filed in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission on 25 June—not 25 June this year but 25 June 2012. I would think that many people in the community would think that that application has been heard by now. I am sure that it comes as no surprise to many in this House that that application has still not been heard and is listed to be heard at the end of this month. I think that that is an absolute disgrace. The retail sector is a very important one for our community and for our economy. It employs many people. When I worked in a department store when I was at university, there were in excess of 500 employees at that particular department store. I have also worked at small stores where there have been three or four employees. Retail is one of the backbones of small business and small business is the backbone of the Queensland and Australian economies. One of the things that we need to do is make it easier for business to be able to do business. Indeed, that is something that this government is always talking about. We want to be able to support business and enterprise because, in turn, that means that more people have jobs. I believe that a job is a very important thing. It is one of the greatest dignities that we can ever offer someone. The suite of reforms that we will see with regard to the changes that we are making to trading hours orders will certainly have a positive effect for that industry. This demonstrates our continued commitment to cut red tape. This is something that the opposition members often laugh at and often scoff at, but they do not understand that the Queensland community does not scoff at it, the Queensland community does not laugh at it. Indeed, the Queensland community is an incredibly great supporter of the measures and the moves that we have taken to cut red tape. I note that the assistant minister, the member for Nanango, is listed to speak to this bill. I have no doubt that the moves that we are making in this space will be something that she will touch on. The member for Toowoomba North spoke about the conduct of some of those who appeared at the public hearing. I would have to say that I was a little bit disgusted. Public hearings are not an opportunity for union officials to yell and bully members of parliament. Public hearings are an opportunity for members of parliament, when conducting an inquiry into a bill, to discern relevant information and to seek additional information above and beyond the written submission that they have received. I put to Mr Ben Swan, who was representing the Australian Workers Union, if I remember correctly, an allegation that I had heard. I felt that that was entirely appropriate. I did not say to Mr Swan that I believed or accepted it; I merely said that I had heard it, it troubled me and I wanted to give him and his union the opportunity to respond. I felt that that was fair. What I did not feel was fair was having Mr Swan yell at me. I did not feel that it was called for in the slightest. I think that just goes to show that unions will always resort to bully tactics, because they are scared of what Queenslanders think of unions. The reality is that unions and the opposition are scaremongering. They are telling Queenslanders that this bill is bad for them and they are telling Queenslanders that this bill is bad for their jobs. That is absolute and flagrant scaremongering. This bill will result in an improved, fair and open industrial relations scheme that can only be good for Queenslanders and can only be good for Queensland jobs. We are seeking not to make the system more complicated; we are seeking to make it easier. It will mean that for workers it will be easier for them to understand where they need to look if they want to find out what their conditions are. People who are seeking to enter an industry will not
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3943 Other Legislation Amendment Bill have to wade through in some cases five or six different awards; all they will have to do is look at the new modern award to understand what entitlements will be available to them if they decide to enter that industry. This amendment bill contains a very positive suite of reforms that will have very positive effects on the Queensland economy and very positive effects on job numbers. I commend the Attorney-General for the work that he has been doing. I also commend my fellow colleagues on the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee. We are a very busy committee and I appreciate that the secretariat works very hard. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to them and thank them for the great work that they do in supporting us. The Leader of the Opposition commented that the inquiry was only six weeks long. Personally, I do not have an issue with that. I felt that six weeks gave me ample opportunity to get my head around the positive suite of reforms that we are introducing in this legislation. Six weeks gave the committee the opportunity to receive 35 written submissions from individuals or organisations. Six weeks gave the committee an opportunity to have a public briefing from departmental officials from the Department of Justice and Attorney-General. Six weeks gave the committee an opportunity to organise and hold a public hearing at which we had possibly 15 representatives from various organisations and various unions appear. I do not believe that there is any concern whatsoever about the time frame. Quite frankly, I think there has been a lot of scaremongering on this issue. Time and time again we see union officials and the opposition seeking to mislead the community. They seek to tell the community that something is white when it is black. They are misleading the people of Queensland. I cannot say what I was going to say, because that would have been unparliamentary language. This bill will be good for Queensland. It will be good for the working conditions of Queenslanders, because it will mean that we will have a very modern industrial relations framework. Importantly, it will be a flexible industrial relations framework. I think that was never evident when Labor was in power. Labor does not want a flexible industrial relations system. It wants an industrial relations system that seeks to benefit the unions. Labor does not want an industrial relations system that works for unions, employers and employees, which is what we should be seeking. We need a system where people can negotiate their own conditions. So those who are on high incomes of $129,300 or more will be able to negotiate their own conditions, which is entirely appropriate. It means that people can make decisions about their own livelihoods without being dictated to. Time and time again we see governments trying to tell people how they should lead their lives and what they should do. It is not the role of government to tell people how they should lead their lives. It is the role of government to give people the freedom to make the decisions that they want to make about themselves. The changes that we have made with regard to high-income workers who are earning in excess of $129,300 is testament to that. There is much in this bill that we can be incredibly proud of. I know that all members of the government are very proud of the work that the Attorney-General has done. Mr Hart interjected. Miss BARTON: I do stand with the Attorney-General and I am proud to call the Attorney-General not only a colleague but also a friend, because he has made tough decisions in the past 18 months. He has done the hard yards, because he wants to see Queensland prosper. Mr Hart: He works for Queensland. Miss BARTON: He is a worker. He works hard for the people of Queensland and he seeks to do so not because of any personal glorification but because he believes in Queensland, because he believes that it is a great state with great opportunity. He wants to see more Queenslanders in work. He wants to see Queenslanders having a flexible industrial relations system that allows them to make decisions about their own future, that allows people to make decisions about their own entitlements and awards when they are earning more than $129,000 a year. The Attorney-General wants a flexible industrial relations system in this state because it is good for Queensland. It will be good for the Queensland economy. Unlike the opposition, we care about the Queensland economy. We want to grow a four-pillar economy, because we want our AAA credit rating back, because we want to pay off the debt. All the opposition members seem to care about are their union mates. All they seem to care about is making sure that their preselections are assured because they have done the right things to support the unions who control their factions.
3944 Motion 19 Nov 2013
At the end of the day, there is only one team in this House which stands up for Queenslanders and which stands up for Queensland workers. I think everyone on the government benches knows that that is this can-do government. We are being proactive about instituting positive reforms and positive change that will benefit Queensland workers, that will benefit Queensland employers and that will ultimately benefit the Queensland economy, because positive changes in the industrial relations framework can only mean better conditions for employees and it can only mean that employers are in a better position to be able to employ more people. That is ultimately the sign of a strong economy. If we have more people working, ultimately that is a very good thing not only for the workers but also for Queensland generally and Queensland’s economy. As I say, the Attorney-General has been working very hard. I thank him very much for the work that he has done in this space and I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Miss Barton, adjourned.
ELECTORAL DISTRICT OF REDCLIFFE Resignation of Member Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise that I have received from Mr Scott Driscoll his resignation as the member for Redcliffe effective immediately. The letter was received by my office at 4.38 pm this afternoon. I table the member’s letter of resignation for the information of the House. Tabled paper: Letter, dated 19 November 2013, from Mr Scott Driscoll MP, member for Redcliffe, to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Hon. Fiona Simpson MP, regarding his resignation from parliament [4075].
MOTION Infrastructure Projects Ms TRAD (South Brisbane—ALP) (5.29 pm): I move— That this House: • notes the Newman government’s failure to initiate a single major publicly funded infrastructure project in its first 20 months in office; • recognises the government’s failure to properly plan new transport infrastructure in Brisbane and regional centres; • acknowledges the Newman government’s rejection, on political grounds, of the former Labor government’s Cross River Rail project that would have avoided the rail network crisis facing the Brisbane region; • notes that the Cross River Rail project had received endorsement from Infrastructure Australia after a rigorous cost-benefit analysis; and • calls on the Premier to: – rule out asset sales to fund his latest tunnel vision, and – guarantee that the project will not result in budget blowouts like the Clem7, the Go Between Bridge, Legacy Way and the City Cycle scheme. I listened carefully this morning to the statements made by the Premier extolling the virtues of his newest tunnel plan. What he said was factually incorrect and typically full of spin. He said Cross River Rail lacked vision and that Labor did nothing to address bus congestion. That is very rich coming from a man who as Lord Mayor refused to contribute a single cent to the construction of Brisbane’s world-class busway network on which council buses operate. Government members interjected. Ms TRAD: Every single kilometre of the busway network was built and funded by Labor. The 500 new buses that Brisbane City Council now operates were paid for by the Labor government. In fact, if there is a problem with bus congestion in this city it lies entirely with the Brisbane City Council. Under Lord Mayor Newman’s stewardship, Brisbane City Council failed to restructure its bus services and simply piled more and more services onto the Victoria Bridge causing the current bus congestion problems that the Premier now laments and which the transport minister failed to fix when he reviewed the bus route network earlier this year. For a project that supposedly lacks vision, Cross River Rail delivered far more than the Newman government’s alternative. Let us go ahead and compare the Newman government’s plan with Cross River Rail. The Newman government’s plan has fewer stations than Cross River Rail:
19 Nov 2013 Motion 3945
three compared with six. Important and developing precincts like Boggo Road and the Exhibition site will be unserviced by the LNP’s plan. Where is the vision in excluding those growing precincts? Additionally, the relocation of the Albert Street station to George Street moves the catchment away from Brisbane’s golden triangle, an area that desperately needs a major public transport hub. Where is the vision in moving the station further away from our growing central business district? The LNP plan will also involve the demolition of Dutton Park station in my electorate which will not be replaced. People using Dutton Park station, particularly regular patients of the PA Hospital, will have to make use of Fairfield or Park Road stations. Where is the vision in demolishing a train station, making public transport harder to access for the residents nearby? The stations themselves will be smaller. Cross River Rail stations were to be built to enable the future use of nine-car trains. Government members interjected. Ms TRAD: Under the LNP government’s plan, stations will max out at seven cars. Where is the vision in not planning for the future to enable significantly larger trains as the population increases? The LNP’s plan includes no freight component. Cross River Rail included a dedicated freight line allowing the separation of freight and passenger services on a dedicated dual gauge freight line between the Acacia Ridge intermodal terminal and the Port of Brisbane. Where is the vision in excluding the dedicated freight improvements? The big selling point of the LNP’s plan is apparently the inclusion of bus services, but the selection of portal location precludes the most flexible use of the infrastructure. Large and well patronised busway stations, like QUT, Kelvin Grove and Normanby, are bypassed. In fact, respected public transport expert Dr Chris Hale— Mr Emerson interjected. Ms TRAD: And the minister should listen to this—from the University of Melbourne, thinks that the inclusion of bus services in the tunnel is a waste of money because the increased construction costs cannot be justified by the smaller capacity of buses to move passengers. Madam SPEAKER: Pause the clock. Minister, the member is not taking your interjections. Ms TRAD: I table for the benefit of the House a Brisbane Times article that appeared today, in which Dr Hale said— The crux question is—do the benefits of adding that small amount of people movement capability from buses (to the tunnel) outweigh the very significant additional cost that’s going to involve?
And it just can’t, the maths cannot stack up. Tabled paper: Online news article from the Brisbane Times, dated 19 November 2013, titled ‘Bus and rail tunnel all show and no substance: transport expert’ [4076]. There members have it: respected experts think the plan is a dud. What else can you expect from a dud of a minister. In fact, Dr Hale called the plan a stunt, pure and simple. To quote him directly— They’ve just come up with a stunt, an idea that looks really flashy and exciting.
However, on any basic transport planning process you would see that bus lanes are the way to go, and high capacity rail for the main moving people path. But of course what would you expect from a government that does not properly plan? They are all spend and no substance. What are they left with at the end of the day? Government members interjected. Ms TRAD: The one selling point they supposedly have left is the cost of the project. Madam SPEAKER: Order! Pause the clock. I am having difficulty hearing the member for South Brisbane. I would ask members to please cease their interjections. Ms TRAD: The one selling point they supposedly have left is the cost. They say their plan will be cheaper at $5 billion compared with Cross River Rail’s $8 billion. As we have seen, their project is delivering less than Cross River Rail. It is easy to spend less when you deliver less. The figure they continually quote for Cross River Rail is not accurate. It is actually $6.4 billion. That is the rigorous final costing that was arrived at after years of careful planning. It is the figure from the final business case that was approved and reviewed by Infrastructure Australia. I would love to tell the House what the rigorous cost figure for the LNP’s public transport plan is or even compare the benefit-cost ratios of the two projects by checking their final business case, but that document does not exist. I would love to be able to compare the detailed reference design
3946 Motion 19 Nov 2013
documents of the LNP’s public transport plan with that of Cross River Rail to find out even more about the supposed merits of the project’s design, but that document does not exist either. I would love to be able to compare the environmental impact statement of the LNP’s plan with that of Cross River Rail to compare the potential environmental impacts of the two projects but that document also does not exist. The LNP’s plan is a figment of the narrow and small political imaginations of the Premier, the Treasurer and the Minister for Transport. It is sketched up on an envelope. There is no business case. There is no detailed reference design. There is no environmental impact statement. There is no substance. There is only spin. This project is designed to be a political fix for the problem that they caused themselves. I have said it before: the LNP’s rejection of Cross River Rail was a political stunt to get their mate Tony Abbott elected. They put politics and the LNP first and the interests of Queenslanders a distant second when they rejected the $715 million in capital funding and 50 per cent of ongoing availability payments from the federal Labor government to build Cross River Rail. They promised they could come up with a plan that was better. I suspect one of the reasons the Premier hates Cross River Rail with such a passion is that it was an idea for a tunnel that just was not his. So of course he had to scrap it and come up with a project that was wholly his. He cannot share. He does not play well with others. You can read the report card now. It is clear that the Premier’s new plan is not ready. If this was a school assignment the Premier would fail because he has not actually finished it. None of the detailed design and business case documents will be finished until 2015 at the earliest. Cross river rail is shovel ready now. The LNP’s plan will not be shovel ready until 2015 at the earliest, only one year before the rail capacity crisis hits in 2016. If they manage to finish the plans and then find funding for the project and then adhere to their optimistic deadlines for construction it would start operations in 2021 at the earliest, at least five full years after the rail capacity crisis hits. That is not planning. That is not proper administration. That is a dud approach by a dud government and a dud minister who could not even adequately review bus routes throughout South-East Queensland. The plan that he presents to the people of Queensland is a complete and utter dud. Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (5.40 pm): I rise to support the motion moved by the member for South Brisbane. It can be difficult to keep track of the LNP’s position on cross river rail. When the Premier was the Lord Mayor, he was for it. Then he changed his mind and was against it. Then he wanted a metro instead. Then the LNP changed its mind and wanted to build the Cleveland solution. Then, when everyone was told that the Cleveland solution was silly, they changed their minds again and wanted to build half of cross river rail. When the federal Labor government gave them the money to actually build it, they decided they better help out their mate Tony Abbott and promised to come up with their own plan. On Sunday the Premier, the Treasurer, the Minister for Transport and the Lord Mayor stood shoulder to shoulder and promised Queenslanders that they had finally made up their minds. They unveiled the underground bus and rail tunnel and they claimed the project will cost $5 billion. Of course, there is no business case or reference design to base this on. It is a figment. It is a guess. Then again, we are used to seeing back-of-the-envelope calculations and knee-jerk policy solutions from this shoot-from-the-lip government. Who knows what the cost will be once the LNP gets around to finishing its plan in 2015. The LNP needs to stand up here today and say that there will be no cost blow-out for this project. Of course, once they made the announcement on Sunday, the uncomfortable part of their media stunt began when people started to ask questions. When asked about funding for the project the Treasurer, said, ‘I’m confident that the finance can be found’. He had about him the guilty look of a Treasurer who has let the deal of a lifetime to fund and build cross river rail slip through his fingers like a catch going to that legendary English cricketer Phil Tufnell. We already know he will get no assistance from Tony Abbott. The new federal government, which this LNP government played politics to help get elected, is refusing to fund urban public transport infrastructure, so they will have to go to the private sector or the council to help fund the project. But here comes the zinger: they have already let everybody else off the hook for funding. The Courier-Mail reports— The Government will commit to completing the tunnel by 2021, regardless of whether the Brisbane City Council or private sector contributes. These people would have to have the worst poker faces in history, yet now they want to introduce three new casino licences.
19 Nov 2013 Motion 3947
Let us consider the Premier and the Treasurer’s track record when it comes to cost blow-outs on transport infrastructure projects. Let us talk about the Premier’s 2004 election commitment called Moving Brisbane. That document promised to deliver, in a $3.2 billion plan, the Clem 7 tunnel, the Hale Street bridge, the Legacy Way tunnel, the Kingsford Smith Drive duplication and an east-west distributor tunnel. Those projects were promised to be delivered via PPPs with a $2 toll, with no cost to the taxpayer. What a promise! The Clem 7 tunnel ended up costing ratepayers $770 million. It went from $1 billion to $2 billion to $3 billion or, as the Premier once described it, ‘$1 billion—plus, plus’. The Hale Street bridge cost ratepayers over $370 million. The east-west distributor tunnel never happened. The Kingsford Smith Drive duplication never happened and Legacy Way was left with a forecast by QTC of a substantial ongoing deficit. The tolls also ended up being much higher than $2. And don’t get me started on that farcical city cycle scheme that went from $1.5 million to more than $8 million in cost. The Premier might describe that as ‘$1.5 million plus, plus, plus, plus, plus’. This Premier and Treasurer have form when it comes to financial ineptitude and mismanagement. According to the 2012 QTC credit review, debt was forecast to increase from $389 million in 2008-09 to $2.415 billion this financial year, which is an increase of 521 per cent. For comparison, the projection for state government debt under the previous Labor government was an increase of 84 per cent over the same period. Debt was only low in 2008-09 because the state Labor government bailed out the council with a contribution of nearly $2 billion to take control of water assets. Recently, QIC purchased the Clem 7 tunnel, the Go Between Bridge and the Legacy Way tunnel to effectively bail out the Brisbane City Council and going some way to erasing the sins of the past during the Newman era in Brisbane City Council. The QIC then supposedly realised that it had overinvested the defined benefit scheme in toll road assets and now had to sell them all in a $5 billion asset sale, which will include Queensland Motorway Ltd. It is almost beyond belief that QIC would independently bail out the Brisbane City Council by purchasing those assets only to then realise that they owned too many toll roads. This reeks of a bailout and it reeks of asset sale by stealth. Unlike the Premier and the Treasurer, Labor has a proud record on delivering public transport infrastructure. It was Labor that delivered $2.5 billion in busways across South-East Queensland. It was Labor that delivered the majority of funding for the 500 new buses that the Premier, as Lord Mayor, hung his hat on. The council’s share of funding for buses has fallen from nearly 50 per cent to less than 40 per cent under the now Premier. The LNP has no answers about how it will fund its tunnel fantasy, just as it has no answers as to whether $10 billion for QTRIP is accounted for in the budget. Queenslanders have a right to fear more asset sales from a Newman LNP government that has already incurred a loss on asset sales and investments of $302 million in just one year. Hon. SA EMERSON (Indooroopilly—LNP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (5.45 pm): I move— That all words after ‘Newman’ be deleted and the following words inserted:
• government is delivering better planning and better infrastructure for Queenslanders;
• notes that the Newman government is delivering a significant transport infrastructure program despite the debt and deficit left by the former Labor government;
• notes that the Newman government is delivering on all its election promises for better transport infrastructure for all Queenslanders;
• notes that the previous Labor government did not have a mandate from the people of Queensland to sell assets;
• notes that the former federal Labor government failed to meet former transport minister Annastacia Palaszczuk’s 2011 demands for 75 per cent of the funding for Cross River Rail; and
• notes that the former Labor government did not have a policy to deliver extra capacity for the rail network between 2016 and 2020. Clearly, the performance of the member for South Brisbane was rattled and frazzled. She must have other things on her mind at the moment, and no wonder. She must have other things on her mind, because she was all over the shop. A government member interjected. Mr EMERSON: I take the interjection: what else was she thinking about, because obviously she was not thinking about roads or public transport? Clearly, she was thinking about other things that must be focusing her mind tonight. I can understand that completely. The reality is that this government has been focused on public transport and roads and, despite the claims of Labor, we
3948 Motion 19 Nov 2013
have continued to deliver. We have kept to our election promises. We are delivering on infrastructure. Let us look at our QTRIP program for the next two years: $10.3 billion, which is $2 billion more than under Labor’s QTRIP program. That is $2 billion more for our QTRIP program. Let us look at some of the projects: a new road-over-rail bridge at Bracken Ridge and Geebung. I know that the members representing those areas know the importance of our $200 million worth of projects. I see the member for Nudgee nodding his head and the member for Sandgate nodding her head. The reality is that those are important projects. Flood mitigation at Blakeys Crossing— A government member: Hear, hear! Mr EMERSON: Exactly. I was very pleased to be with the Minister for Local Government to turn the first sod on that project. We have already completed the Mather and Woolcock streets project in Townsville. The Toowoomba ring-road project design work is under way. Two additional lanes are being built on the Centenary Motorway, fixing up Labor’s mess for the Springfield to Richlands project. We are sorting out Labor’s cost blow-out at the Blacksoil interchange. I know the member for Ipswich West is very much aware of their failings on that project. In the short time I have tonight I want to focus on two areas in particular. I would like to speak about this for a very long time, but I have only three minutes. Let us talk about the Bruce Highway. We saw a great result for the Bruce Highway come out of the federal election. We have a commitment from the state and federal governments, the now coalition government, for $10 billion for the Bruce Highway and the Gateway north upgrade over the next 10 years. That is $10 billion. Let us not forget what Labor’s mate Albo down in Canberra wanted to do. He wanted to cut funding for federal roads in Queensland. He wanted to change that traditional funding arrangement of 80 per cent and take it down to 50 per cent, costing Queensland billions and billions and billions of dollars. All we saw from those opposite was a cheer squad, clapping Albo who wanted to take billions out of our federal road funding. That is all we saw. Instead, we delivered for the Bruce Highway, which is an economic lifeline for the state. Along with the Abbott government, we will continue to deliver that $10 billion program over the next 10 years for the Gateway north upgrade and the Bruce Highway. If Labor had been in power, we would have seen a lot less. I turn now to the Underground Bus and Train project. It is a great project that will deliver in terms of rail and bus infrastructure. That is something that the previous government could not do. We saw the former transport minister, the now Leader of the Opposition, make up numbers as she went along. Let us not forget the infamous interview on Steve Austin’s program where she picked a number out of the air. If something was $8.3 billion suddenly in the interview it was $7 billion. A couple of weeks later it was $6.4 billion. She was just making it up. They had no idea. The bottom line was that it was unaffordable and undeliverable. Our project will deliver for Queenslanders. There will be great savings in terms of bus travel times. There will be great savings in terms of doubling the capacity for our rail system. The reality is that the Underground Bus and Train program is a great project. It will deliver for Queenslanders. But, of course, the member for South Brisbane is not really focusing on that; she has other things on her mind, and so she should. Mr MINNIKIN (Chatsworth—LNP) (5.50 pm): The member for South Brisbane is the gift that just keeps on giving. I believe this is probably her third or fourth private member’s motion this year. She reminds me somewhat of the little engine that thought she could—I think I can; I think I can. But, once again, she fails to deliver and she is out of steam. I am going to refer to the member for South Brisbane straight away. I would like to bring to the attention of the House an article in the Queensland Times in March of this year. It is headed ‘Blacksoil lies are exposed’. It actually goes back and showcases the ineptitude of the Bligh Labor government. But in keeping with this transport theme of how inept these transport tyros still are, it brings in the member for South Brisbane. Let us begin with the sordid tale of the Blacksoil overpass. The scenery is something like this. In the middle of January 2012, then Premier Anna Bligh advised the press that the Blacksoil project would cost around $70 million. But a bit later on there was a Department of Transport and Main Roads briefing note which was sent to the then minister for main roads, fisheries and marine infrastructure—a gentleman by the name of Mr Craig Wallace—which told a completely different story. The leaked document was sent to the then minister in early February 2012. It said— ... “as of 2 December 2011, the detailed design cost estimate for the project has been finalised— not at $70 million, as Anna Bligh espoused— and is anticipated to cost $94.4 million”.
19 Nov 2013 Motion 3949
The article goes on— Acknowledging the $24 million discrepancy, the noting brief then anticipates the impact the revelation of the truth would have if made public. No way in the world was the Labor Party going to let a $24 million blowout get in the way of a good story. I am going to keep going with the Blacksoil issue very shortly. The simple fact of the matter is that the torch within the ALP may have been passed on to other incoming members, but their trickery, their meanness, their deceitfulness is maintained. It does not matter what Hornby train track they try to put together, the deceit and the trickery is maintained. The article in the Queensland Times states further— Earlier this year Ms Trad told The QT in a written press release that the LNP Government, including the Member for Ipswich West Sean Choat, was responsible for the cost blow-out. The article, interestingly, goes on to say— “The Federal Government held up their end of the bargain, delivering $54 million in June 2012 towards what was a $70 million project ... in the meantime, the delays have seen the project blown out to $94 million—a 30 per cent increase on what was originally budgeted,” Ms Trad said. She was trying to point out that it was the incoming LNP government that was responsible for the $24 million blowout. But wait, there is more to this Hornby saga. The Queensland Times article goes to on say— But the secret document says that “the increase in costs has been caused by the discovery that material on site is unsuitable for construction purposes and all required embankment material will need to be imported to site.” It, in fact, had nothing to do with the member for Ipswich West. This is just another example of the lies, deceit, trickery that the member South Brisbane is prepared to come into this House and speak to the press— Mr PITT: I rise to a point of order, Madam Speaker. That language is unparliamentary. Madam SPEAKER: I ask the member to please withdraw that. Mr MINNIKIN: I withdraw that comment. I will go on to give further examples of the ALP’s ineptitude and why I label all of them as transport tyros. The minister, who is doing an incredible job, talked about some of the work that has been done—and I repeat, has been done. I was at a media conference on open level crossings in the middle of this year with the member for Nudgee and the Lord Mayor. I will refer to two red spot survey documents. The seven members opposite, who are probably best transported in a Tarago, would know that back in 2004 they did a red spot survey and did one again six years later in 2010. As part of the red spot survey it identified—and it is here in black and white—the Newman Road at Robinson Road east and west intersection at Geebung and Telegraph Road at Bald Hills as chronically looking for an overpass solution. Was that done in all the time that the Labor Party was in government? We all know the answer to that question. It is a resounding no—bing bong. It was not until the incoming Newman government came to town that those projects got done, making a mockery of the member for South Brisbane’s assertions. (Time expired) Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—UAP) (5.55 pm): I support the motion before the House. I say so because this LNP government was elected on a mandate to address, amongst other things, the combined issue of investment and major deficiencies in transport infrastructure in Queensland. I know because I was on the standing policy committee that addressed these matters. It matters very little obviously that these policies were discarded by now Premier Campbell Newman and the government. We made no promises that could not be achieved, but we did promise to push ahead with a second range crossing—albeit with a significant federal government contribution—we did agree to address and confront the 2016 deadline for the full capacity on the Merivale above-river crossing and we did agree to address the pressing issue of a dilapidated Bruce Highway. I say to members that these things are not being significantly addressed. What we have had in the last week is an announcement of a new combined bus and rail tunnel from Dutton Park to Bowen Hills. This was championed by the Premier as a solution to the 2016—although it will not be finished until at least eight years after that—Merivale above-river crossing. It is said to be at a projected cost of $5 billion, and there is very little evidence to go with it.
3950 Motion 19 Nov 2013
There are major difficulties that are consistent failings with most of the proposals submitted by the Premier on behalf of this LNP government. They are just guesswork regarding costings. This is not satisfactory. This is not professional. It is not good enough. In fairness, cross river rail was costed and a complex engineering profile done to verify the model and also detailed consultation undertaken. I attended quite a deal of it and most of the members who were here at the time also did. For the record, the Speaker may remember, when she was the shadow minister for transport, that I actually approached her saying it was the wrong proposal. I basically said that it was wrong because it did not follow the original plan of many governments that had gone before. There was a long history attached to this. Those original plans were to facilitate access to a rail tunnel at Park Road, or thereabouts, linked to Roma Street and use what is known as the very expensive hole in the wall at Bowen Hills, which most members have probably never heard about. It was built at great cost at Bowen Hills to take the extra rail link. The combined bus-rail tunnel is not supported by major transport planners essentially because the carrying capacity is too low for a transport efficiency model. There are no comparable, successful worldwide models. I have actually gone through it as best I can in the last 24 hours. Therefore, the rail component cannot be supported if it goes with the bus component. But the rail component alone could be supported in a different model because it carries a six to eight times multiplier and there is far less tunnelling involved. This is before a much delayed delivery date. Conservative governments pride themselves on practicality. In fact, this project that has been proposed is not practical. I say so because it is like a lot of the other pie in the sky nonsense that this government comes up with. This government basically has not considered what it is going to be doing with those buses. Remember that they run largely on gas. If you have this tunnel at 50 to 100 metres down, do people realise that to manage those exhaust gases at that level is technically very difficult? You have people down there at that level. Trains run on electricity. The only successful model of tunnels at that comparable depth is in Russia, and they have a lot of difficulty. So this has not been thought through. Are we electrifying the buses? Is that what is coming? This project is unaffordable and undeliverable. I quote the current minister, because in fact this is his proposal. He is right to say that they need a solution, but the solution has to address the problem of the Merivale Bridge by 2016, and we all know it. I ask government members to look at the details themselves here, because it is in the details where the answers are. The Cross River Rail is the plan so far. If it is not the answer then address something that really is the answer. But do not come up with some pie in the sky answer. The problem is that the people of Cleveland are loading the rail network in peak hours and we must address that problem. (Time expired) Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—LNP) (6.00 pm): At the outset I would like to give the member for South Brisbane an understanding of what it is to budget for transport infrastructure and any other sort of infrastructure. The old Labor way is to pick a figure out of the air and say, ‘Yes, we are going to deliver that,’ and they tell the people of South Brisbane and the people of Queensland. I have to tell the member for South Brisbane that it does not work that way. The reason this state is in the infrastructure mess that it is in is that the Labor way is not the planning way. Why did the current LNP government take so long to put some of these infrastructure packages in place? Because first of all we had to find the money. We had to find where the money was going to come from. We had to do the planning and you have to get it right the first time. That is one of the reasons why the Premier announced that Cross River Rail project today. It is about planning, getting the infrastructure planning right, and finding the funding. In the motion the member for South Brisbane ‘notes that the Cross River Rail project had received endorsement from Infrastructure Australia after a rigorous cost-benefit analysis’. I ask the member for South Brisbane this evening: did Infrastructure Australia put any money up for these projects? Not a red cent. I might also add that it was the Leader of the Opposition, the then transport minister, who wanted 75 per cent federal funding and 25 per cent state funding. Do you know why the federal Labor government would not put the money up? Because they knew that the state Labor government in Queensland was stone motherless broke, and they were not going to put money into a project that could not be substantiated by their colleagues in the state government.
19 Nov 2013 Motion 3951
This is why in this state we are in the dilemma that we are today. We had a visionist Labor government. Madam Speaker, I take you back to 1995 and 1996 when the Goss government procrastinated over the koala tunnel for the alternative route to the Gold Coast. It was the Borbidge-Sheldon government that put that road in place because we planned it and we worked out how we were going to cost it. And who wanted to take credit for it? It was the Labor government. When it comes to the South East Busway, it was not the Labor government that started that; it was the Borbidge-Sheldon government that started that. We put the infrastructure plans in place. We heard the Minister for Transport and Main Roads say in this House here this evening that this government is going to put $10 billion into the Bruce Highway upgrade over the next 10 years. I have to say that if this government did not put a billion dollars of state money in none of these projects would get started. It is because we plan and we realise that that highway is the backbone of the transport corridors in this state. We must service those areas to the north. We must feed off those roads to the west like the Flinders Highway, the Capricorn Highway and the Warrego Highway. That is where the dollars are generated. Again, Labor sold off Queensland Rail without consultation with the people. They talk about us going to sell off assets. What hypocrites they are! They sat over here and fabricated the truth month after month after month until the next thing we knew QR National were the owners of QR. The other thing is that that 2,300 kilometres of Queensland Rail track that was sold off was the cream of the lines—the cream dollars coming out of the coal and mineral division. We know why meat processing companies at Ipswich are not working properly and cannot work full chains. It is because Labor ran down the rail infrastructure and they could not deliver cattle to those ports. You might laugh, member for South Brisbane, but I think you are a lamebrain fool if you think that I have this wrong. You just do not understand. Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory, that is unparliamentary and I ask that you withdraw it. Mr JOHNSON: I withdraw whatever was offensive. But let me finish by saying this: the LNP government has proved that when we were in government in 1996, 1997 and 1998 we were the government for the worker, we were the government for the future, we were the government for planning, we were the government for putting infrastructure in place. Honourable members interjected. Madam SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr JOHNSON: Again, it is our government that is going to deliver infrastructure and is going to deliver a better Queensland for all Queenslanders—not the Labor way of the South-East Queensland party. The LNP is a party for all Queenslanders. Mr KATTER (Mount Isa—KAP) (6.05 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the debate. I will probably take a different tack than a lot of previous speakers. I question why we are prioritising this Cross River Rail project at all when there are so many critical infrastructure projects in regional Queensland that could contribute to the wealth development and industry development that we so desperately need. I will address the first dot point of the motion that ‘notes the Newman government’s failure to initiate a single major publicly funded infrastructure project in its first 20 months in office’. I do not think this is limited to the Newman government. I think it has been done by most governments of both political persuasions for the last 10 or 20 years. I think it is symptomatic of the economic orthodoxy that we exist under today and the advice that comes out of Treasury—that is, that we should have smaller government, that these projects should come from private investment and that we should sell assets and divulge ourselves of these responsibilities. I can give a clear example of that under the previous Labor government when north-west Queensland needed a contribution to a transmission line project that could have helped secure regional development and energy in that region, in north-west Queensland, for the next 50 years or so. We had federal government support. We had support from private industry. We did not get state government support. Now we are still 100 per cent reliant on gas in that area. That is really going to
3952 Motion 19 Nov 2013
hurt us in the long term in terms of our energy supply out there. So there is a role for government to invest in these infrastructure projects because the hurdle rates are clearly too high for private industry. That seems to be the mantra now—that the investment needs to come from private industry, whether it is dams or powerlines or whatever. So I think everyone is guilty here. I would now like to focus on the rail line in our area. We are looking at spending $5 billion on a Cross River Rail project here in Brisbane. I question how that is going to contribute to our economy when we have a rail line that is delivering $15 billion to the economy with the supply chain from Mount Isa to Townsville. Those trains should be running at 80 kilometres an hour but they are running at below 40 kilometres an hour. If you talk to people who work on those lines, they say that the maintenance has slowly degraded over the last 20 years. There are ‘slow down’ signs all along that rail line. ‘Slow down’ signs mean that there is not as much capacity on the trail line and so we are putting more trucks on the road and carrying everything on the road. The Flinders Highway is now suffering untold damage because it now has a lot more volume. Now when I drive along the Flinders Highway I experience ‘slow down’ signs all the way along it because we are not able to keep up with the maintenance on that highway. So I question whether that money is better spent on this Cross River Rail project. I can tell you right now that I do not think it is better spent on that project when you can improve the road and rail in regional areas—and I am sure there are a lot of areas like mine in regional Queensland that are delivering a lot of growth and where there is a lot of industry potential. We talk about debt and whether we can afford it. Again, what is too much debt? If you are spending it on pink batts or school buildings, of course it is bad debt. Many years ago Sir Joh and his government built Queensland. They built the coal industry and many other things. They plunged the government into huge debt to build Queensland. I think there is still a lot of industry potential that can be unlocked, and government has a role to play in unlocking that potential by investing. Yes, that may incur some debt, but in the long term it will provide that stimulus to the economy that is needed, resulting in increased competitiveness in mining and other industries that has been lacking or has deteriorated over the last 20 years due to lack of investment. We hear so much about trying to make these industries more competitive. I think the elephant in the room with regard to such things is that the infrastructure has deteriorated in the shortfall. That deterioration with regard to energy, water, roads—whatever you want to talk about—in north-west Queensland is the big problem holding back our competitiveness. This touches on a really wide subject. We are well off the mark in relation to our direction at the moment because we are waiting for private industry investment. It does have its place and I am sure there are circumstances where that model can work, but we cannot rely on it all the time. There does need to be a conscious shift in economic policy so that we are not focused on fiscal policy, debt reduction and surplus; we are focused on economic policy which also incorporates industry development, jobs, employment growth and those sorts of things. In this way I think there is huge latitude for the government to increase its investment in infrastructure— (Time expired) Mr CAVALLUCCI (Brisbane Central—LNP) (6.11 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the debate in support of the amendments moved by the minister. I will comment ever so briefly on the absolutely delusional nonsense contained in the motion put by the member for South Brisbane. Honourable members can imagine when they come up with this stuff: the seven members get into a little circle and they put their heads together. When they are up on level 9 and they put their heads together it must sound like a bowling alley. The electorate of Brisbane Central contains the CBD, the centre of commerce and trade. It contains the existing government precinct and in the very near future will contain both the No. 1 William Street tower and the redeveloped government precinct which will become a six-star entertainment and resort development. An extensive number of bus and train passengers and other commuter traffic heads into my electorate daily. It is clearly understood that capacity issues exist on the rail network crossing into the city from South Brisbane. Additionally, significant capacity issues exist on the bus network at the choke points associated with the Captain Cook Bridge crossings and inner city bus stations. The $5 billion Underground Bus and Train project is a once-in-a-generation
19 Nov 2013 Motion 3953
city-changing project that will deliver startling results and unprecedented outcomes. The truth is that my electorate will not be the biggest beneficiary of this project; each and every Queenslander who uses the public transport network after the completion of the project will indeed be the greatest beneficiaries. Through the unprecedented cooperation with the Lord Mayor of Brisbane and the BCC and by combining dual train lines with two bus lanes within the 15-metre-wide tunnel, the project removes the necessity for the BCC to complete its Suburbs 2 City bus project which will provide a direct saving of $3 billion. Through all the bumbling to come from the opposition over the past few days, this point is one of many that is completely lost to them. This $3 billion direct saving is completely and utterly lost to them. I think I know where the minister lost them. It was at that word ‘saving’. When you throw in that word ‘saving’, the eyes of the members of the opposition begin to glaze over and there is a clear look of confusion on their faces. So let us just cover off a bit of history of the project. Beattie first talked about the second river crossing in 2005. Labor in government came up with a number of fanciful options starting at $14 billion. Then it went to $10 billion, to $8 billion and to $7.7 billion. They took this fantasy to the last election unfunded and after seven years it was never going to be delivered. Labor wanted the feds to pay 75 per cent, but Albanese could only cough up 25 per cent. The former government spent $48.6 million on the fantastical and undeliverable versions of Cross River Rail, not including the resumptions. In the last few days this government has announced the underground solution delivered for $5 billion—$9 billion less than Labor’s first version and $3 billion less than Labor’s most recent version. So the Leader of the Opposition bumbles away on TV asking, ‘How is it possible that this government is going to deliver it at this cost?’ She stated that we should proceed with their version on which they had already wasted $48 million, which was $3 billion more expensive than our option and which did not include $3 billion in savings from combining the BCC bus project. It is unbelievable. Only in the world of the ALP does it make sense to spend an additional $6 billion simply because they had already spent $46 million. What is this project going to deliver for congestion? Construction is expected to start in 2015 and buses using the tunnel will connect with Legacy Way, delivering on our election promise of better infrastructure and planning. This is a great outcome for those travelling by bus to the city and the outer western and Centenary suburbs, saving 10 to 15 minutes. It will ease congestion along Coronation Drive and Milton Road and will ensure that Legacy Way is a vital part of the South-East Queensland public transport network. It will double the capacity of the rail network from 24 to 48 trains per hour. Each morning 20,000 people will move through the new, perfectly positioned George Street station. Eighty per cent more people will travel on Gold Coast trains. Commuters will save 14 minutes when travelling by train from Beenleigh to the city. It will save commuters travelling by bus to UQ 10 minutes. It will shave four minutes from the trip to Brisbane northern suburbs by bus. It will increase the Inner City Busway capacity by 180 per cent. It will take 200 buses off the CBD streets and 100 buses off the Captain Cook Bridge during the morning peak hour. These outcomes will deliver truly outstanding results for congestion reduction within the CBD and my electorate. The Underground Bus and Train project delivers on the LNP’s commitments to better planning, better infrastructure, reducing waste, delivering jobs and improving front-line services. I commend the minister for his fine work on this outstanding project. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (6.15 pm): I rise to support the motion moved by my colleague the member for South Brisbane. In doing so, I would like to say hello and welcome to the public gallery to Donna and Laurie-Ann from Mining Communities United. They had to come to Brisbane to find Rosemary Menkens because she never visits Collinsville in her own electorate. I would just like to point out that the member for Burdekin is here on the floor of the House. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the LNP in government have shown all the worst hallmarks of conservative governments across the nation. They do not plan and they do not build. All they do is cut infrastructure spending and cut services. One major piece of infrastructure that this government has commissioned is just across the road. It is a building that I call the ‘Premier’s palace’. They are happy to build a shiny, new Executive Building for themselves, but when it comes to top quality transport infrastructure for Queensland, Queenslanders can forget it. So instead of servicing the CBD, they want a station to service a freeway. It is the Riverside Expressway rail line. I am very proud to have been part of a government that recognises the value of good planning and good transport infrastructure. In fact, on Monday, 2 December the people of my electorate will start to enjoy the benefits of a Labor government’s good planning and vision when the extension of
3954 Motion 19 Nov 2013
the Springfield railway line opens for business. Of course, the Labor government also put its money where its mouth is. Regardless of who cuts the ribbon, Labor funded and Labor built the $475 million railway line. I know that the minister will be out there acting like a fraud, cutting the ribbon, making out that it was the LNP’s work. Let me tell him that the people in the electorates of Inala and Bundamba know that it was a Labor government that delivered this Springfield railway line. Under an LNP government the rail line to Richlands, let alone to Springfield, would never ever have been built. Let me go on, because the Moreton Bay rail link would never have gotten off the ground; the Gold Coast light rail would never have come to fruition; and the world class busway network that Brisbane now relies on would never have been thought of. These projects are all excellent examples of the planning, the vision and the common sense that Labor governments bring to public transport infrastructure. These are all projects that these tories, these LNP mugs, would have dismissed as low priority or cut as wasteful spending. The LNP does not even take seriously their own plan for the Brisbane underground. They have not done a business case, they do not have a reference design and they do not have an environmental impact statement. They cannot say with any certainty how much it will cost, how it will be funded or even how long it will take to build. They simply have no idea, and this was revealed in the Senate estimates hearings in Canberra yesterday. But guess what? This LNP government has not even discussed it with Infrastructure Australia. We cannot even be sure if it is their own idea. Well, is it? At the same estimate committee hearings it was amazing because Mr Michael Deegan, an Infrastructure Australia coordinator, said ‘We have been in discussion with Queensland Rail in particular.’ He went on to say— The previous federal government had offered funding for a particular project— the Cross River Rail— but the new CEO of Queensland Rail has been looking for some time about reviewing and refining that process. So who is in charge of the process: is it the minister; is it the Premier; is it the Treasurer; or is it the Deputy Premier, who is mostly missing in action? We do not know who it is. But now that we are talking about transport I am going to ask the minister: why does the minister not fund the redesign and build of the Logan Road Interchange at the Centenary Highway where, every morning and every afternoon, motorists are stuck? That is because— (Time expired) Hon. DF CRISAFULLI (Mundingburra—LNP) (Minister for Local Government, Community Recovery and Resilience) (6.21 pm): I can only say how absolutely appalling it is to have those opposite come in today and attempt to lecture us about infrastructure delivery. Of all people to come in and attempt to lecture someone about the ability to deliver infrastructure, though it certainly is very refreshing to see the member for South Brisbane finally register her interest about something. That is nice; that is positive; that is a step forward. The assistant transport minister described her as the ‘little engine that could’. That was interesting. It would be nice if she would ‘choo choo choose’ to put some things down on the register one day because— Ms TRAD: I rise to a point of order. Madam SPEAKER: Order, members! Minister, take your seat. Pause the clock. What is your point of order? Ms TRAD: I find the statements made by the member for Mundingburra offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. Madam SPEAKER: Minister, I ask that you withdraw. Mr CRISAFULLI: I withdraw, and I will not lock it in, Eddie. Can I just comment on a government that comes in here and attempts to lecture us about infrastructure delivery. I will briefly touch on an aspect of the original motion that I found particularly offensive. It was the ability of those opposite to attempt to show an interest in regional Queensland and an interest in the delivery of infrastructure to regional Queensland. In fact today, during the course of question time, to hear the member for South Brisbane interject on the Treasurer and comment that one of the reasons for the great financial turnaround of this state was the fact there were no natural disasters in this financial year, shows an absolute lack of understanding of regional Queensland. Member for South Brisbane, there was not a natural disaster this financial year in Brisbane, but Queensland is bigger than Brisbane—
19 Nov 2013 Motion 3955
Ms TRAD: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order? Ms TRAD: The member is misrepresenting what I was interjecting on. Madam SPEAKER: Please take your seat. Order, members! Order! Ms TRAD: I find his statement and his imputation personally offensive and he should withdraw. Mr CRISAFULLI: I will withdraw if the member finds it offensive. But there was no misrepresentation, I can promise you that. I want to comment as a regional Queenslander about this plan and why— Mrs Miller: You’re a fraud! Mr CRISAFULLI: Member for Bundamba, I do not find that offensive because you are irrelevant. Madam SPEAKER: Order, members! Minister, please take your seat. Pause the clock. Order! I call the minister. Mr CRISAFULLI: As a regional Queenslander, I want to comment about this project. I want to explain why those who seek to drive a wedge between regional Queensland and the south-east have got it wrong. Regional Queenslanders, the people who I represent, do not begrudge money spent outside of their particular region. They begrudge two things: one is the fact that they have been starved of funding for their projects, the things that matter; the second is to have seen the waste that has been spent in this place. That is what causes the frustration. The people I represent are not malicious people who do not want to see things happen elsewhere; they just do not want to see waste. That is what they do not want to see. They want to see an end to the way government was in this place; where dams were built without pipelines and pipelines were built without dams. Do you know what they have seen in recent times? They have seen projects like Blakeys Crossing finally get underway. They have finally seen a plan to do something about the Bruce Highway. I will not let the member for Mulgrave off the hook on this, because again in his speech today there was a little backhanded swipe about the Bruce Highway funding and casino licences. This is a man who will do nothing but undermine a potential job creation project and a piece of infrastructure which means everything for his part of the world. I will hold him to account on that. I am sadly running out of time, but let me say this to you: the previous Labor government did not have a mandate from the people to sell assets. The former federal Labor government failed to meet former transport minister Annastacia Palaszczuk’s 2011 demands for 75 per cent of the funding for Cross River Rail. The former Labor government did not have a policy to deliver extra capacity for the rail network between 2016 and 2020. The Newman government is delivering better planning and better infrastructure. The Newman government is delivering a significant transport infrastructure program, despite the debt and deficit left by the former Labor government. The Newman government is delivering on all of its election promises for better transport infrastructure for all Queensland. Above all the Newman government promised better planning and better infrastructure, and we are now delivering for a great state with great opportunities. (Time expired) Division: Question put—That the amendment be agreed to. AYES, 61—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Cavallucci, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Nicholls, Powell, Pucci, Rice, Rickuss, Robinson, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens
NOES, 9—Byrne, Douglas, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Miller, Scott Resolved in the affirmative. Division: Question put—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to.
AYES, 62—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Cavallucci, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Nicholls, Powell, Pucci, Rice, Rickuss, Robinson, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens
NOES, 9—Byrne, Douglas, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Miller, Scott Resolved in the affirmative.
3956 Motion 19 Nov 2013
Motion, as agreed— That this House: That all words after ‘Newman’ be deleted and the following words inserted: • government is delivering better planning and better infrastructure for Queenslanders; • notes that the Newman government is delivering a significant transport infrastructure program despite the debt and deficit left by the former Labor government; • notes that the Newman government is delivering on all its election promises for better transport infrastructure for all Queenslanders; • notes that the previous Labor government did not have a mandate from the people of Queensland to sell assets; • notes that the former federal Labor government failed to meet former transport minister Annastacia Palaszczuk’s 2011 demands for 75 per cent of the funding for Cross River Rail; and • notes that the former Labor government did not have a policy to deliver extra capacity for the rail network between 2016 and 2020. Madam SPEAKER: I would like to remind members that the lighting of the parliament’s Christmas tree will occur this evening at seven o’clock accompanied by carols from the Harris Fields State School. Sitting suspended from 6.40 pm to 7.40 pm.
MOTION
Driscoll, Mr SN, Order to Attend the Bar of the House Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (Leader of the House) (7.40 pm), by leave: I move— That— (1) the House notes Ethics Committee report No. 139, tabled in the House on 19 November 2013, which recommends that Mr Scott Driscoll be charged with a total of 49 counts of contempt; (2) in accordance with standing order 274 the attached order circulated in my name, specifying the charges of contempt against Mr Driscoll and requiring that Mr Driscoll attend at the Bar of this House on Thursday, 21 November 2013 at 11 am, be agreed to; and (3) on Thursday, 21 November 2013 at 11 am Mr Driscoll be provided 30 minutes in which to respond to the charges from the Bar of the House.
______
MR SN DRISCOLL—ORDER TO ATTEND THE BAR OF THE HOUSE
(Section 40 of the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 and Standing Order 274 of the Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly).
In accordance with the recommendations of the Ethics Committee Report No. 139, tabled in the House on 19 November 2013 and Standing Order 274, the House orders Mr Scott Driscoll to attend the Bar of the House on Thursday, 21 November 2013 at 11.30 AM to answer the following charges: 1) That you Scott Driscoll are guilty of contempt for failing to register a total of 14 different interests in the Register of Members’ Interests and Register of Related Persons’ Interests on a total of 48 occasions in accordance with Schedule 2 of the Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly, namely: A. within one month of taking your seat on 15 June 2012, you failed to declare: i. your role as a director of Outsourcing Council Asia Pacific Ltd under s.7(2)(b); ii. your role as a director of Australian Small Business Coalition under s.7(2)(b); iii. your role as president of Queensland Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association, the industrial organisation, under s.7(2)(o); and iv. you and your wife’s involvement with Regional Community Association Moreton Bay as a matter which could raise a conflict of interest under s.7(2)(p). B. within one month of the following changes, you failed to declare: i. your wife’s appointment as secretary of Australian Small Business Coalition under s.7(2)(b) (obligation to declare from 28 August 2012); ii. your wife’s appointment as a director of Australian Small Business Coalition under s.7(2)(b) (obligation to declare from 28 August 2012); iii. your wife’s cessation as a director of Australian Small Business Coalition under s.7(2)(b) (obligation to declare from 28 June 2012); iv. your wife’s cessation as secretary of Australian Small Business Coalition under s.7(2)(b) (obligation to declare from 1 October 2012);
19 Nov 2013 Motion 3957
v. your cessation as secretary of Queensland Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association, the company, under s.7(2)(b) (obligation to declare from 24 October 2012); vi. your wife’s appointment as director of Queensland Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association, the company, under s.7(2)(b) (obligation to declare from 24 October 2012) ; vii. direct income from Norsefire Pty Ltd paid into you and your wife’s joint bank account under s.7(2)(m) in excess of $500 on 12 occasions in the period from May 2012 to March 2013 totalling $215,670.02 as set out below: • 21 May 2012 $1,000 • 20 June 2012 $4,400 • 28 June 2012 $25,000 • 29 October 2012 $57,200 • 2 November 2012 $14,612.18 • 8 November 2012 $64,019.26 • 22 November 2012 $1,700 • 3 December 2012 $30,000 • 4 December 2012 $2,100 • 10 December 2012 $4,638.58 • 10 December 2012 $6,000 • 18 February 2013 $5,000 viii. your wife’s direct income from Regional Community Association Moreton Bay (13 separate payments) under s.7(2)(m) between September 2012 and March 2013 resulting in 13 separate payments to your wife in excess of $500 totalling $15,831.23 as set out below: • 21 September 2012 $1,634 • 3 October 2012 $1,232 • 18 October 2012 $1,232 • 26 October 2012 $616 • 8 November 2012 $1,232 • 22 November 2012 $1,232 • 6 December 2012 $1,232 • 20 December 2012 $1,232 • 3 January 2013 $1,339.63 • 17 January 2013 $1,232 • 31 January 2013 $1,232 • 14 February 2013 $1,232 • 1 March 2013 $1,153.60 ix. income received by Norsefire Pty Ltd from Regional Community Association Moreton Bay (9 separate payments) under s.7(2)(m) in excess of $500 from May 2012 to February 2013 totalling $151,331.44 as set out below: • 15 May 2012 $13,750.02 • 27 June 2012 $7,403 • 27 August 2012 $23,907 • 5 September 2012 $22,621.50 • 10 September 2012 $10,376.94 • 19 October 2012 $21,861.52 • 16 November 2012 $11,424.78 • 3 December 2012 $11,424.78 • 7 February 2013 $28,561.90 x. income received by Norsefire Pty Ltd from Queensland Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association (three separate payments) under s.7(2)(m) in excess of $500 from June to August 2012 totalling $139,434 as set out below: • 26 June 2012 $14,717 • 30 August 2012 $14,717 • 30 August 2012 $110,000.
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3958 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
2) That you committed a contempt of the Legislative Assembly by deliberately misleading the Legislative Assembly in your personal explanation on 19 March 2013 in referring to your role as President of the Queensland Retail Shopkeepers Traders Association by stating ‘… I ceased being a voluntary president in September last year …’” Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to.
COMMITTEE OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Portfolio Committees, Reporting Dates Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (Leader of the House) (7.41 pm): I advise the House that the Committee of the Legislative Assembly at its meeting today resolved, pursuant to standing order 136, that the Finance and Administration Committee report on the Public Service and Other Legislation (Civil Liability) Amendment Bill by 3 February 2014; the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee report on the Penalties and Sentences (Indexation) Amendment Bill by 3 February 2014; the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee report on the Agricultural College Amendment Bill by 3 February 2014; and the Agriculture, Resources and Environment Committee report on the Biosecurity Bill by 21 February 2014.
Auditor-General’s Reports, Referral to Portfolio Committees Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (Leader of the House) (7.42 pm): I advise that the Committee of the Legislative Assembly has resolved, pursuant to standing order 194B, that the Auditor-General’s report to parliament No. 2 of 2013-14, Supply of specialist subject teachers in secondary schools, tabled on 15 October 2013, be referred to the Education and Innovation Committee for consideration; the Auditor-General’s report to parliament No. 5 of 2013-14, Traffic management systems, be referred to the Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee for consideration; and the Auditor-General’s report to parliament No. 6 of 2013-14, Results of audit: internal control systems, be referred to the Finance and Administration Committee for consideration.
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (FAIR WORK ACT HARMONISATION NO. 2) AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading Resumed from p. 3944, on motion of Mr Bleijie—
That the bill be now read a second time. Ms TRAD (South Brisbane—ALP) (7.43 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the debate of the Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. As has already been advised by the Leader of the Opposition and my Labor colleagues, the opposition will be opposing this legislation. I think, considering the events of this morning, I should actually declare in speaking to this bill that I am a member of a trade union, in case anyone is wondering. The Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 represents the sixth occasion on which this government has made amendments to the Queensland Industrial Relations Act during the 54th Parliament. On average, this government is changing state based industrial relations laws every three months. Not only does this create confusion and upheaval for employees; it also denotes a government myopic in its ideology and incapable of actually managing its own reform process adequately. But as Queenslanders have come to know, if you put the Attorney-General in charge then this is what you should expect: incompetent management and bigotry. There is so much wrong with this bill that my allocated time is hardly sufficient to outline all of my concerns. From the outset, however, it is important to acknowledge the misnomer in this bill, misleading in its inclusion in the title. Any suggestion that this bill seeks to harmonise state industrial
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3959 Other Legislation Amendment Bill laws with the Commonwealth Fair Work Act is disingenuous. It is just not true. As Ms Kate Ruttiman, Deputy General Secretary of the Queensland Teachers Union, stated during the public hearing on 1 November— While it is camouflaged as harmonisation, it really isn’t. The reality is that the only genuine harmonisation is the addition of the term fair work in the title of the bill. Or we might describe it as selective harmonisation. The government suggests that there exists some benefits or improvements to workers’ conditions. This is inaccurate. With the exception of the introduction of an increased benefit of sick leave from eight days to 10, which in most industries is already standard, the changes reduce the rights of workers rather than enhance them. This bill really does represent the Attorney-General’s mastering of doublespeak—the art of disguising the nature of the truth, particularly when it comes to the intersection of politics, truth and language. As Ms Ruttiman stated, the Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 directly reduces the rights and conditions of Queensland workers, including Queensland front-line workers—workers like our hardworking teachers and principals. This bill will enable the removal of conditions hard fought for and won by many members who believe that, in organising their labour and collectivising their demands, meaningful change can happen in their employment. This bill does not represent a well-considered exercise in harmonising industrial law. It is of course the LNP’s version of Work Choices for Queensland. For example, deputy principals and principals will be put on individual contracts. Awards and agreements will be prohibited from including provisions on union right of entry to workplaces. And in a very inflexible approach, the bill proposes a new chapter that stipulates required content for modern industrial instruments and awards and certified agreements. This has the intention of significantly restricting the scope of matters which may be negotiated between the employer and the employee. Incredibly concerning, particularly for teachers and nurses, is the prohibition in modern industrial instruments of matters that go to organisational change, training, workload management and delivery of services, and workforce planning. One of the conditions likely to be cut for teachers relates to class size targets. Already our schools have lost approximately 500 teachers due to changes to day 8 calculations and the removal of advisory visiting teachers. This will result in a further erosion of teacher numbers in our state schools. This legislation will adversely affect not only our hardworking teachers and principals but also the children they teach. Our kids deserve better. It will also have a perverse effect on the quality of teaching. As noted in the Queensland Teachers Union submission to the inquiry on this bill— … currently both the Teachers’ Award State and the TAFE Teachers’ Award State contain provision regarding access to professional development (Part 9.1 Professional Development and Training, Teachers’ Award State 2012 and Schedule 2 Professional Development/Release to Industry conditions, Schedule 2, TAFE Teachers Award State 2012). These provisions act to ensure equitable access of teachers and tutors to professional development. In TAFE and vocational education and training (VET) subjects, this enables teachers and tutors to retain industry currency. The removal of these provisions may result in only a select few accessing professional development, thereby impacting on the profession and the currency of teachers skills. This legislation will also effectively remove the right of employees to take protected industrial action in support of enterprise bargaining claims. Members and their unions see this as a direct attack on the first and enduring principle of organised labour—the right to withdraw labour in the fight for better wages and conditions. The bill stipulates that from seven days after the end of an agreement the employer—in this case, the LNP government—can call in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission to assist negotiations for 14 days. This is followed by another long 90 days of arbitration and during all of this time no protected industrial action is allowed. Essentially, this will result in a one-week window for unions to ballot their members in order to take protected action. For the Teachers Union, a process of balloting its members takes eight to 10 weeks. Also of significant concern is another example of the erosion in the doctrine of the separation of powers, which has been relentlessly pursued by this government. The bill enables the Attorney-General to exercise unilateral determination over employment conditions and ministerial direction over the award review process. Make no mistake: this legislation puts all the power over workers in the hands of the government, particularly in the hands of the inexperienced and ideological Attorney-General. In the same bill this government effectively extinguishes the rights of unions and their members to access recourse through industrial action when an unfair offer is forced upon them, and you can guarantee that under this government that is a foregone conclusion. This bill is a terrible attack on front-line Queensland workers. It is a terrible attack on their conditions at work. It will effectively not enable them to have meaningful participation in working with their employer to set the conditions and the way in which they conduct their work in important
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3960 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill institutions like the public health system, like the police force and like the firefighting force. This is quite an outrageous attack on Queensland’s front-line public servants. As I said, the Labor opposition will not be supporting this bill and I can guarantee that this attack will be remembered at the next election. Hon. LJ SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—LNP) (Minister for Health) (7.51 pm): I rise to support the Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill before the parliament tonight and also commend the Attorney-General for the work which he has undertaken in bringing it to the parliament, because we are talking here about transformational change which is going to make a great difference with regard to sustainability in the public sector, particularly the health sector in Queensland, and which will also provide better outcomes for workers. What we have heard tonight is more of the same ideological nonsense from honourable members opposite because they fail to understand and fail to acknowledge, fail to recognise and fail to even replicate in this House the fact that this legislation before the parliament almost in its entirety replicates the provisions of the Commonwealth government’s Fair Work Act. That is the simple reality and they are the simple facts. It brings in Queensland Employment Standards. It indicates that issues such as awards and entitlements are actually preserved as a minimum and rolled over unless there is a superior instrument. There is no doubt that they are the facts and they are the realities. If we adopt the nonsense that we have heard from honourable members opposite, then we will continue to see the negative consequences that come from an antiquated industrial relations system in Queensland which is now denying Queensland workers the opportunity for a pay rise because of the fact that their union bosses are not properly standing up for their interests. Just last week in the Industrial Relations Commission we saw the resolution of a longstanding dispute with regard to the Queensland Ambulance Service in the commission and now we are going to see a 2.2 per cent pay rise, as I understand it, delivered from 2 December but not backdated. This matter has now been arbitrated on for about the last 12 months. If it had been properly dealt with under the provisions of this legislation, that pay rise would have come into effect months and months ago and Queensland workers would not have been out of pocket. That is the simple reality. What we are seeing is the ludicrous situation where Queensland workers are being held to ideological ransom by the Labor Party and the union bosses because they are using antiquated processes to frustrate the process and to deny those wage increases. It currently takes up to two years to arbitrate and resolve these particular issues when under this legislation it will be 118 days. Queensland workers will get their pay rise quicker, and that is going to be good news for workers and certainty for taxpayers in Queensland. A moment ago we heard the honourable member for South Brisbane say how this winds certain things back. The honourable member for South Brisbane and the coterie opposite are also standing up for this by voting against these changes, and I refer to some of the complexities with regard to Queensland Health. We have a working in the rain allowance duplicated with slight differences in two awards. We have situations where in one case it took almost 18 months to transfer a vacant position from one area to an adjacent area. This happened under the Labor Party’s ridiculous industrial laws. We have also seen that it took two years to change a roster at a laboratory at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital. How antiquated and out of date is that? There are also demarcation problems where cleaning staff are prevented from cleaning bodily fluid spills and a new system to reduce errors in identifying patients was hamstrung after administrative staff were banned from putting wristbands on patients when they arrived at hospitals. This is what those antiquated Bolsheviks over there are standing up for. You would almost think it is the spring revolution of 1917 all over again! That is what they are fighting for—stuff that the Bolsheviks gave up in Russia during the time of Perestroika, but they are over there as though nothing is really happening. They seem to be living in some sort of time warp and parallel universe. This will be transformational change and it recognises that we need to do something to bring about fundamental change and reform, and even the Labor Party knows in its heart of hearts that many of these things have happened. That is why I am in possession of so many documents that it produced in its time in office. It was very instructive today, because I actually gave some of those documents to the Together union. I said, ‘Did you realise that this was the agreement between the previous government and Mater Health Services with regard to outsourcing around the issue of pathology and catering and pharmacy?’ It said, ‘We haven’t seen that.’ This was at a time during the 2009 election when Together was backing that mob over there and opposing us. It is the same thing in so many other areas of outsourcing where those opposite have secretly done these sorts of things. This legislation is based on the Fair Work Act.
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3961 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
Health is an example of a mess—a mishmash, a spaghetti maze of confusion with some 4,500 award variations. Is it any wonder that the payroll system blew up and emolliated the then incompetent Labor Party government and now opposition? Even the Auditor-General and every single report undertaken by the Labor Party and by ourselves have indicated that the complexity of the award system in Queensland Health is something which has contributed to that. This allows us to streamline, to make sure we have a contemporary environment of industrial relations in Queensland. Today I was speaking to a director of nursing—a senior nurse manager—who said that the rats and mice stuff that she has to consent to and pay out and authorise every single week is ridiculous—the $1.50 over there, the $2 over there, the $3 over there. The fact is that it costs much more to administer than what we are paying out at the end of the day. Quite frankly, many nurses and many health workers yearn for a simpler system where we have simpler allowances where we can bundle it up and pay them a meaningful amount where they get some benefit and we get some benefit administratively. Is it any wonder we have 1,000 people in Queensland Health administering a payroll system when the industry standard is around about one-tenth of that or even less for 80,000 employees? Yet they are happy to see scant and scarce resources diverted away from the front line in propping up what is an antiquated industrial relations system. We are mopping up Gordon Nuttall and Jo-Ann Miller’s mess, the member for Bundamba, when she was the apprentice to Gordon Nuttall, and that is what we are seeing here in Queensland. Today we again saw the most disgraceful attack from the honourable member for Bundamba—the class warfare, the fact that they hate doctors—when she stood up here and again attacked visiting medical officers in Queensland. They have no respect whatsoever. They hate doctors. Today in this parliament we heard it again from the mouth of the honourable member for Bundamba. I can say to the honourable member for Bundamba that many of those doctors are still smarting over her outrageous comments in this parliament in August this year when she stood up and described them as fake Tahitian doctors. We are talking about the most senior surgeons and the most senior procedural specialists who save lives and make a difference in hospitals every single day of the week. Yet the member for Bundamba is prepared to stand up and make the most disgraceful slur. These people also adopt a very altruistic approach to service in our hospitals with regard to their training and with regard to the hours they work that they do not claim. I want to commend Ross Cartmill, who suffered for many years under the privations imposed by those opposite through their lack of respect, as did many senior medical officers in this state, and their failure to negotiate competently and on time. We have been able to sit down and come up with a contract basis in principle, which is now going out to VMOs so that they will be able to consider that in time. That has been negotiated in time, preserving the current fundamental underlying entitlements and allowances, carrying them forward, putting them in an agreed KPI environment and making sure that we get the productivity and we get the review and we get a simpler system. Guess what? From their perspective they also get a guaranteed salary every fortnight without having to go through the privations and the difficulties of the Queensland Health payroll system. Their pay has been preserved. Mrs Miller interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: Does the honourable member for Bundamba think that it would be less if they had agreed to it? Under her government, when it came to negotiating agreements with the VMOs it was up to 18 months or four years late. As I explain these things to Queensland Health workers, they understand. That is why we have the unions and the Labor Party whipping up apathy with regard to rallies held out the front of this place. We see no million-man marches. We see no reflection of the scare tactics. Most workers do not buy it. They understand that these are essential and necessary changes based on Labor’s own Fair Work Act that preserve allowances and entitlements and ensure that there is an independent arbiter, which is the QIRC that will oversee the simplification of awards. That is why this bill is good for taxpayers, good for workers and good for patients in Queensland. (Time expired) Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (8.02 pm): I wish to speak against the bill and place on record that I am a member of a trade union. I want to speak about the continuing attacks by the Newman government on public sector employees and the impact that these vicious and despicable assaults are having on regional Queenslanders. We have already seen the harm done by the mass sackings and their aftermath. Throughout Queensland there are loyal,
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3962 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill talented and hardworking public sector employees—people who work in health, on the roads, in our electricity supply and distribution industry, in emergency services and correctional services whose morale is low and who fear that they will fall victims to privatisation. Now, all of those who work in the public sector for the government and for councils face a new threat. The Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 can be described more accurately as Newman’s Work Choices. Certainly, the use of ‘harmonisation’ in the title of the bill shows the cruel hypocrisy towards trade unions and working people that has distinguished the Premier and his hateful administration. ‘You have nothing to fear from me,’ he said as he finalised his plans to destroy the careers of at least 14,000 government workers in one fell swoop. Of course, it is not just the public sector workers who this government despises. The changes that it has made to our strong workers compensation scheme shows its poisonous contempt for all employees no matter who they work for. But the Premier and the Attorney-General just love to hurt those who provide services to the public, whether they work for the councils, in hospitals, in classrooms, in laboratories, in offices, in national parks or risk their lives to put out fires or maintain law and order. This bill is the latest manifestation of that hatred. It is the next painful turn of the screw for workers, who are already bruised and battered by the government’s privatisation agenda. Who knows where it will end. Workers are down. Their energy is sapped. Their enthusiasm is diminished by uncertainty and fear. So what does this government do? It pulls on the big shiny boots and gets ready to give them another almighty kick in the guts. After the mass redundancies, the Premier assured us that the sackings were over. So why then does this bill seek to dramatically reduce redundancy entitlements for public sector workers? Of course, we all know that the Premier and his ministers cannot be trusted with any statement about the government’s employees. If the Premier is not preparing for a fresh round of job cuts, why does he want to slash redundancy entitlements? The legislation will drastically reduce the redundancy entitlements for public sector employees. It is no wonder those employees fear the worst. Already, we are seeing reports that foreign doctors are being warned off seeking employment in Queensland. The impact of the LNP’s plan to put senior doctors and medical staff on individual contracts will be felt disproportionately in rural and regional parts of the state, which rely most heavily on attracting skilled personnel from abroad. Doctors attracted to remote country communities by higher salaries and an attractive lifestyle will not hang around when their wages are cut and their hours are extended without reward. By removing fatigue provisions, Newman’s Work Choices bill will not only hurt recruitment but also lead to overtired surgeons operating on patients when they are in no fit state to do so. As I indicated, I am also concerned about the implications of this bill for hardworking families in regional areas. In those areas where the cost of living reflects the high incomes of those who work in the resources sector, public sector workers—those on average pay who work in health, or education, or who mend the roads—struggle with accommodation costs that are skewed towards those higher incomes. Under Newman’s Work Choices, these workers can be further disadvantaged by losing the penalty rates and allowances that are essential to boost their wages. Reducing the take-home pay of these workers could well lead to people simply giving up their jobs and leaving the area. Essential services will suffer. In some remote parts of the state, the flow-on impact of these measures will be devastating. For many, especially casual and shiftworkers, the penalty rates and allowances that they receive are not just a welcome top-up for their incomes that allows them to buy the occasional luxury; they are part and parcel of their usual family income, which allows them to make ends meet and keep a roof over their heads, pay their rates and pay their bills. Reductions in take-home pay, particularly in areas where a substantial part of the population are public sector employees, will have inevitable consequences for the economic wellbeing of those smaller regional communities. People cannot spend in shops and pubs and cafes money that they no longer have. This is a pernicious bill that is more destructive to the standard of living of local and state government workers than the Howard government’s hated Work Choices. Hardworking Queenslanders will not forgive the Newman government for its callousness and they will never forget the complicity of those LNP members opposite who voted for this legislation.
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3963 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
Mrs FRECKLINGTON (Nanango—LNP) (8.07 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill seeks to achieve a number of objectives, but there is one in particular that I wish to focus on today and that is the proposed amendments to the Trading (Allowable Hours) Act 1990. Many members of this House would have heard me speak of my passion for this government’s commitment to reduce red tape and regulation by 20 per cent, recognising the time and money that this can save for all businesses, which flows through to all Queenslanders. If members have any doubt about the need for this task or my enthusiasm, I would just say that when we came to office Queenslanders were subject to more than a quarter of a million government regulations that had been built up over years and years of toxic Labor government. That is why I am pleased to focus on those elements of the bill that aim to reduce the cost to businesses, in particular small businesses, when they require government decisions to be made. Currently, orders for trading hours for non-exempt shops, exhibitions and special displays need to be determined by the full bench of the QIRC. This approach obviously limits the expediency with which the QIRC can consider applications in some cases. If I can give you a perfect example, it may be for a certain shopping precinct to put an application in to have extended trading hours for the Christmas period. Mr Trevor Evans from the National Retailers Association has made a submission to the committee in relation to this exact point. He has also been very active in raising this issue with our government. This is just one example of how we are engaging with the business community and industries to assist in removing these obstacles. It is the fact that the proposed reforms to the Trading (Allowable Hours) Act will provide that applications for trading hours orders may be determined by a single member of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission in particular cases. I note the NRA in its submission said— The NRA supports this proposed amendment, following its recent experiences of trading hours applications taking longer and longer to be heard and decided. NRA considers that this proposed amendment offers a sensible and workable solution to overcoming many of the causes of the delays now being experienced in the hearing of trading hours applications. Whilst this reform will enable trading hours matters to be considered more quickly, it is important to state that, as with other reforms implemented by the government to reduce red tape, this bill ensures that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect both businesses and the community whilst making these decisions. The proposed amendment will allow the commission discretion to have decisions made by a full bench in regard to complex or significant applications. The determination of trading hours orders by a full bench of three commissioners will occur when the vice president considers it appropriate in the circumstances. Clearly it is desirable to provide more flexibility in the process for dealing with trading hours orders and this reform achieves this aim. Implementation of this reform will reduce costs associated with these trading hours applications, reduce the time applicants need to wait for these decisions and will allow for the more efficient use of the commission’s resources. Clearly streamlining the decision making process related to trading hours orders through adoption of the approach outlined in the bill will be a good outcome for all businesses. I congratulate the Attorney-General for being such an active participant in his desire to reduce red tape and regulation for the state of Queensland. I support this bill. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (8.12 pm): I rise to speak to the Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. Not being part of the committee that heard the submissions, it has been very difficult to get to the bottom of the truth because the two points of view that have been presented in this chamber today have been so diametrically opposed. It would be unacceptable if the conditions for workers that have been developed over a lot of years were to deteriorate. Indeed, it would be unacceptable, and I would seek the Attorney-General’s clarification, if as a result of this legislation workers in any sector, as a direct result of this legislation, will have their remuneration reduced. I am a firm believer that whether we like it or not people do commit themselves up to what is regarded by them as their usual wage. It happens particularly in those jobs where allowances attach to the wage but those allowances have attached over a long period of time. It used to be in councils that people who drove machinery were always given an allowance for maintenance servicing of the piece of equipment that they drove. I remember when we changed the system of payments at Calliope shire—so it is a lot of years ago now—those allowances were rolled into their base pay simply because some of the gentlemen had received those allowances for 30 and 40 years so for them it was part of their expected remuneration. So I am very keen to know whether this legislation is going to reduce a person’s take home pay.
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3964 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
There are elements of this legislation, if the debate is accurate, that are welcome. I know in rural and regional Queensland it has been difficult to get permanent doctors at the Gladstone Hospital and at other hospitals as well. It has been contributed to this debate that this legislation will allow greater flexibility to health and hospital boards to negotiate appropriate packages for these medical appointments to be successfully made. If that is the case it is certainly welcome, but if it is disadvantageous then the corollary to that is that hospitals that are already finding it difficult to get staff will find it impossible. The member for Inala in her contribution said these words: ‘The unions are using their own money.’ It was in the context of fighting the legislation and the Labor Party’s understanding of the legislation. Like this government, like us here in this parliament, the unions do not spend their own money, they spend the union membership’s money like we spend taxpayers’ money. It is incumbent upon each of us to make sure that that money is used well and honestly. The firefighters union and I think a couple of other unions have approached the government and us as members concerned about gaining an exemption for their new award from retrospective parts of the bill before parliament. I would just like to put on the record a couple of extracts from a letter that I received, and I am sure other members did as well, from John Oliver, State Secretary, United Firefighters Union of Australia, Union of Employees Queensland— The Queensland fire and emergency service (QFES) (formerly known as the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service) currently employs almost 2500 Queenslanders as auxiliary firefighters. Auxiliary firefighters live predominantly in rural and regional communities right across Queensland, though some live and work as auxiliaries in larger towns and cities, including the outskirts of Brisbane, South-East Queensland and Gold Coast regions. Auxiliaries usually have primary employment in another occupation in their communities and have made the decision to contribute to their community by becoming a firefighter. He goes on to talk about the negotiation that has occurred in relation to the QFRS auxiliary firefighter interim award, a state award of 2013. He states— The commission published a decision on 19 September 2013 that this Award should be made for auxiliary firefighters. The Award content was agreed to by the parties and submitted to the Commission on 21 October 2013. The parties now await the publication of the Award. The parties now expect that the Award is to be released by the Commission in November 2013. He goes on to state that their award will be affected by this legislation and is asking that special consideration be given to the award that has been negotiated by the auxiliary firefighters, the union representing them and the Industrial Relations Commission. A previous speaker alluded to the fact that the amendments that the Attorney-General has introduced will cover that concern. I would certainly be keen to hear confirmation that that is the case. My conflict with this legislation is more based on the debate that we have had so far because it is so far apart. I support the right of workers to know that they can be confident that they will be paid what they are worth and that going forward every single recognition of the work that they do does not have to be a fight to the ditches. I also recognise, as the Minister for Health mentioned in his contribution, that administrators who are setting up pay rotations should not have to every week allow $1.50 here or $2 there because they did or did not have contact with whatever the particular element is. In local government it is live sewage. In hospitals it is to do with body waste. They should not have to. If a person’s general work means that that is a real potential in a given working day then it is something that they are entitled to have. My inclination is to support the second reading, but to listen very hard to the debate on the clauses of the bill in order to make a decision in relation to my support or otherwise. I place on the record that I believe it is incredibly important that we recognise the work that people across Queensland do in all areas of work, the more humble as well as the more public. We also need to appreciate and respect those workers for the contribution they make to the success of this state. We are quick to talk about our employees being our most valuable resource, but those words mean nothing if the actions of employers do not match that rhetoric. Whether that employer is the state government, whether it is a government instrumentality or whether it is the small shop on the corner, a worker knows if they are valued by the way that they are treated. I hope that this legislation will engender respect and value into the workforce and not disrespect and undermine the confidence that workers should have, especially those—and it is the vast majority—who give a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay.
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3965 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berry): Order! Before I call the member for Gaven, I wish to acknowledge in the gallery the Hon. Vince Lester, the former member for Keppel and Peak Downs. I welcome you and I hope you enjoy the night. Mr Bleijie: The next contribution will be interesting. Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—UAP) (8.21 pm): The Attorney-General should look forward to it. The bill that is being debated here tonight has been introduced in an environment where far too many people are going to suffer from the least unintended consequences of the legislation. Clearly, the labour force is justifiably angry at what is being imposed upon it, which is a kind of punishment for the very reason of having a conservative government elected. I acknowledge all the speakers who spoke earlier in opposition to the legislation and who made detailed comments about the impacts on all sorts of workers and I will focus my comments upon health workers. In no particular order, the workers include those in corrective services, which I have had a lot to do with in my working life, electrical people throughout the industry, firefighters, a variety of different classes of public servants and so on, as have been listed earlier. I am very concerned about the changes to redundancies, which I see as a code for another round of cuts. Queenslanders will not accept this and I doubt we could tolerate the impact on our front-line services, where inevitably the effects will be felt. To pursue a scorched earth policy in industrial relations is to lose all before you start. It was interesting to hear the statements that were made before by the member for Gladstone. Our businesses are our staff and our customers; all businesses are their staff and their customers. That maxim applies to businesses, staff and commerce globally and it must never be forgotten. That said, I wish to focus on the issues affecting medical staff primarily. I have already publicly stated that staff contracts to medical staff are worse than anything offered by the rejected Work Choices. The health minister’s attitude to those key medical staff and any new medical staff who may consider joining the public health system in Queensland is, in his words, ‘take it or leave it’. Despite his quoting of Ross Cartmill who has spoken on behalf of some VMOs, the loud statement from medical staff is, ‘We will leave’. We have spent many years building up our system after years of neglect and disasters such as Patel, the payroll dispute and a decision for many years not to pursue excellence, which is how medicine actually grows in our system. It is a big decision to make or replicate Work Choices itself or even go one further than Work Choices. Tony Abbott has claimed thousands of times that he has learned from Work Choices and that he is not going there again. Yet here we have extremists, who have little understanding and utter contempt for public opinion, who want to take the electorate of Queensland to a place the electorate of Australia utterly rejected and would not go. It really takes a certain type of ignorant person to do such a thing. When you get such a group together and a draconian piece of legislation, it is amazing what they can achieve: fair work harmonisation No. 2. However, they will not get to No. 3 because, in all likelihood, the public will do to the Campbell Newman government what it did to John Howard. I remind those who do not remember that John Howard lost his own seat and Campbell Newman is likely to replicate that in Ashgrove. That is no mean feat and not one that a person would normally aspire to. However, in this bill collective bargaining is out for medical staff, leave and call allowances are out and there is no fatigue leave to stop the disasters of the past. For those who do not know, we actually used to have very long rosters and people used to work 120 hours, averaged over months. In other words, some weeks you actually worked all the week, including all weekend and nights, and there were disasters as a result of that. We changed that and the public health system grew a lot as a result. According to the health minister, this is the fault of medical staff abusing their previous entitlements. That is what he is quoted as saying. He has also said that this is the new version of conciliation and industrial relations. The minister is saying that he will meet the market in relation to the pay and conditions that they get. What conditions is he talking about, because they do not exist anywhere else and no-one is proposing them? Is he really saying that we will turn the clock back 30 to 40 years? Why not go back 50 years? In fact, why not go back 100 years and see what you will get. That is what we will end up with. Obviously, the minister believes he knows better than anybody else. He is firmly of the belief that his contracts are the new currency for making Queensland hospitals retain and recruit new staff, but it will not happen. There is no consideration for fairness, stability or certainty in any of these deliberations. He holds faith that the VMO spokesperson will defend him to the nth degree. Do members know what happened in New South Wales when this happened? Unfortunately, they walked out and they were left with nothing. Possibly that is where we will see this go. They did that on the basis of this type of stuff.
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3966 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
Basically, the salaried and visiting staff are very concerned and so is everybody else. This will affect everybody in every seat and yet it is a so-called ‘harmonisation’ policy. The end result will be greater uncertainty for all patients, wherever they are, regarding their treatment. It follows that it will lead to further rationalisation of services, real cuts and poorer healthcare. Mr Rickuss interjected. Dr DOUGLAS: That will happen to the member for Lockyer’s constituents, who are already badly served. The rationalisation of services is exactly what will happen. Members should not think it will not happen. We are already seeing the gradual exodus of highly trained, motivated and skilled medical staff, paramedical staff and support staff. We need all those people. Honourable members will feel the effects of this, probably within their own families, and very quickly it will affect their constituents. Bad news travels fast, particularly in the health system. Only yesterday it was widely reported that the head of the New Zealand Medical Association stated that they would be advising their specialists seeking advice about working in Queensland to seek an alternative state and not go to Queensland. He was not joking. We are in a very competitive market for those types of people and it is very hard to get them to come to South-East Queensland, let alone to regional Queensland. In other words, we might get those people to come to Brisbane. If this is Brisbane-centric they might come to Brisbane, but we will not get them to go anywhere else. The bill is an ugly piece of legislation because it does not allow the employee to negotiate reasonably with their employer. It is the antithesis of everything that most people would want proposed in a modern and collaborative world, despite yesterday’s man, the health minister and member for Southern Downs, saying that it is a forward step. Only he could believe that and after three election losses he would be the one to ask, wouldn’t he? An honourable member interjected. Dr DOUGLAS: Exactly. He thinks he is the next Premier. He mistakenly confuses some parts of the legislation that might be beneficial in part with a large slab of the legislation that is, indeed, ludicrous. He talked about how things are ludicrous, but what he was saying was utterly ludicrous. He will punish all of us to satisfy the ideological demands of a vacuous government. Tonight he gave very selective examples of what he believed to be real, substantive evidence of why we need to do something. He spoke of issues about pathology staff and very minor issues of leave and so on. He spoke about very trivial things. This is from a health minister who allowed a failed CEO on the Gold Coast to import his mate from Ireland, a man called Martin Connor, to dubiously implement changes that the Irish health board said were a disgrace and were investigating him for, and then paid him a consultant’s fee of $190,000 to do so. And it gets worse. That fellow was subsequently appointed as a Griffith University adjunct professor so he could impose more of that rubbish on the existing Gold Coast Hospital. Mr BLEIJIE: I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berry): Member for Gaven, if you would just take your seat for a moment. Mr BLEIJIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I have for the last two minutes listened to the drivel coming out of the member for Gaven’s mouth— Mr Newman: It’s not drivel; it’s a rant. Mr BLEIJIE: It is a rant. I fail to understand how it is relevant at all, pursuant to the standing orders. I ask that you call the member in question to order. If he cannot stay relevant to the bill then perhaps he should sit down, but, Mr Deputy Speaker, that will be your call. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Gaven, stay relevant and please continue. Honourable members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Gaven— Dr DOUGLAS: I found those comments offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Gaven, just sit down for a moment. Honourable members, it is getting difficult to hear the member for Gaven. If you would be so kind, could you indulge me by keeping the chatter to a minimum. I call the member for Gaven.
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3967 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
Dr DOUGLAS: The end result of this sort of nonsense peddled by the health minister, where he claims that this is going to benefit the areas of employment and work contracts, is that we are actually not going to see services delivered in the way that we should. We will see a rationing of services. I say that we have to include the doctors, paramedical and support staff, and the patients themselves. It is a collaborative effort. I am just speaking about the health issue here. What people do not realise is that medicine is about team work. If you do not get all those people on the same page at the same time and get good staff you will not get good results. That is what happens. The outcome of the changes proposed are consistent with what is stated by AMA president Christian Rowan. Irrespective of other views that have been stated he is quoted as saying that he does not support the contracts. I ask honourable members: if this is the case then why would anyone else support them either? Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (8.31 pm): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise to speak to this bill. I refer to my dissenting report on the bill tabled in report No. 45 of the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee. I will start by repeating a couple of opening paragraphs in that dissenting report. I stated— I accept that there may be some room for reform but if it is to be carried out then the Attorney-General should show some courage and sit down to meet with affected stakeholders and listen to the views of the community.
Once again however he has introduced the Bill after absolutely no public consultation and provided this Committee with less than one month to scrutinise a Bill which makes substantial amendments to Queensland’s industrial relations framework.
This is clearly not acceptable and to me a sign of an arrogant Government. I listened to the contribution of the member for Gaven who talked about the importance of team work and collaboration. I clearly see an alternative here to a government which is arrogant and says, ‘It’s our way or the highway.’ The member for Gaven has presented an alternative based on team work and collaboration. I take members to the government’s explanatory notes to this very important bill—a bill which has 250 pages. Under the heading ‘Consultation’ on page 8 it states— Consultation has been undertaken with the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Queensland Treasury and Trade, the Public Service Commission, Queensland Health, the Department of Local Government, Community Recovery and Resilience; and the Local Government Association Queensland. There has been no public consultation on the Bill. I have received numerous submissions and the committee has received many submissions. I would like to touch on two submissions that I have received. One is a submission that the member for Gladstone spoke about from the United Firefighters Union of Australia Queensland branch. My estimation of the numbers at the rally outside parliament was that there were thousands of people in attendance. When I looked at some of the tweets it seems that some of the journalists from a newspaper in Queensland think there were just a couple of hundred people in attendance. But never mind, I think that journalist may simply be a paid-up member of the LNP. Maybe he is a card-carrying member of the LNP. I will get back to the bill before the House. I mention the letter from the United Firefighters Union of Australia, Union of Employees, Queensland dated 4 November that the member for Gladstone also touched on. At the rally outside parliament I met with representatives from the United Firefighters Union. I showed them the amendments because they told me that they had a letter from the Deputy Premier saying that they are going to be protected. I understand the award has now been recognised. I handed them a copy of the Attorney-General’s amendments and the explanatory notes and I said, ‘I have had a look at these amendments and explanatory notes and I cannot see how your new award is going to be protected.’ Perhaps when we get to the Attorney-General’s reply speech and consideration in detail we might be able to get some more clarity about how their award is going to be protected under either the bill or the amendments or some other mechanism that the government may have in mind. There was another submission I received. I will read it into the Hansard record. It states— I am concerned that the awards will be changed without any negotiation and that they will be reduced to the minimum as shown in the legislation and that these changes will be made retrospectively. I site the example shown in section 71HB(8) of the Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 which states ...
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3968 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
It goes on to state the examples. The writer of this letter to me goes on to say— I have been a public sector employee for in excess of forty years and I have worked hard and have been a loyal and dedicated employee throughout my career. It would be a gross injustice if our long service leave entitlements are eroded by third. It would also be inequitable as some staff have taken their leave and already had the benefit of it but staff who have elected to save it run the risk of losing a substantive amount. A lot of people in my office and some of my friends outside of work are public sector employees who are concerned about future changes to our entitlements.
As discussed, I request you raise this issue in parliament ... During debate on the bill I hope the minister or someone from the government can clarify that issue. I do not intend to take much more of members’ time. I know very clearly that this bill will be going through. I share the member for Gaven’s view that this is another example of an arrogant government which does not want to consult with Queenslanders. This is another example of a bill that has been introduced and rushed into parliament without proper consultation. When I hear government members say that they were elected on a mandate, I can say to them that when I walked outside and met with Queenslanders who travelled from far and wide to come to parliament to join with friends and other Queenslanders, they certainly do not believe there is consultation with Queenslanders. All I can say is that my money is on the alternative led by the member for Gaven—a party which will work with the team and with consultation and not in the arrogant way that we are seeing from this LNP government. Honourable members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berry): Order! Honourable members, we just need to contemplate for a moment. I call the member for Mount Isa. Mr KATTER (Mount Isa—KAP) (8.38 pm): I rise to speak to the Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. The bill before this House reinstates the dichotomy between workers and employers, thus creating a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different. In this bill it appears that the government is determined to objectify the worker and limit their possibilities whilst granting freedom, responsibility and unlimited possibilities to employers. This bill constructs the subjectivity of the workers and turns the worker into an object which can be utilised and manipulated at the discretion of the employer. In the content of the bill, workers are having their responsibility limited, which limits their freedom to choose. The content of the bill suggests that the government is acting in bad faith by limiting and restricting the freedom, responsibility, choice and possibilities of Queensland workers. The first possibility to be limited by this bill is the workers’ choice to access collective bargaining within the Queensland jurisdiction. Collective bargaining is based in the International Labour Organisation standards Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention 1949, which mandates— Measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers’ organisations and workers’ organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements. Unlike this bill, the mandate was adhered to under the Fair Work Act 2009, thus creating a harmonious balance between all the stakeholders of the industrial relations framework. This bill before parliament has been developed to implement a division between the industrial relations stakeholders and plays on the fact that the government are unrestricted and unaccountable due to their majority in the House. Let this term of majority be a hard lesson to the Queensland people in how absolute power corrupts. It is interesting to note that the government who has absolute power in the parliament has openly admitted in the bill’s explanatory notes that the proposed award modernisation process is similar to that set out in part XA of the repealed Workplace Relations Act 1996, which was the policy implemented by the Howard government. Unlike the present majority government and the non-existence of a Senate within the Queensland parliament and, moreover, in comparison to the bill, the Howard government had to work in with a government minority in the Senate, negotiating an agreement with the Democrats to enable the legislation to pass through the Senate. Thus we are witnessing the introduction and implementation of the Newman government’s industrial relations reforms, making the Howard government’s 2005 Work Choices legislation look like a walk in the park. There is minimal flexibility in this bill for the Queensland worker. Moreover, the greater flexibility lies with the employer. The Newman government is signalling to the Queensland
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3969 Other Legislation Amendment Bill workforce that you have no choice, no freedom, no responsibility. Thus you have to do what the government tells you because the government creates the legislation that limits the Queensland workers’ choice, freedoms, responsibilities and possibilities. I acknowledge and agree with one of the submissions that raised areas of concerns within this bill such as proposed section 71BA, which constitutes a deliberate removal of existing entitlements from award-free employees. Another section that was referred to provides that the penalty for employers not covered by a modern industrial instrument for working a public holiday is ordinary time. Another section referred to contains a provision that would allow for regulation to remove an employee from an entitlement to redundancy pay. Another section referred to provides that the concept of a high-income senior position is created for employees earning over $129,300. The last section referred to provides that medical practitioners will be compelled into contracts that remove existing rights but will not be entitled to any recompense if the new arrangements are not acceptable. These are examples of concerns relating to the content within this bill which exposes the arrogance which the bill has been derived from which actively disregards its working population with a stroke of a legislative pen. The content within this bill punishes the workforce and places workers at odds with their employers. The government fails to understand the relationship between a worker and an employer is a two-way street. Moreover, this bill has erected a one-way sign which allows the employer to drive along without any concern for oncoming traffic. In this bill the government fails to understand the meaning of good faith—good faith being based in the choice one makes for the freedom of humanity, whilst bad faith being a choice which limits the freedom of humanity. Mr Crandon interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berry): Member for Coomera, please. Mr KATTER: The Newman government continually makes legislative choices which limit humanity’s freedom. Moreover, this bill limits Queensland workers’ freedoms to choose, which in turn takes away their responsibility. Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (8.43 pm), in reply: I start by thanking all honourable members for their contribution to the debate this evening, and what a good debate it was. Can I say in relation to the objectives of the bill that I set out earlier that this was all about making sure that we can harmonise as much as possible with the federal legislation. There are some differences—I acknowledge that—which I will get to in a minute. The bill responds to the recommendations, as I said earlier, of the Queensland Commission of Audit and the Blueprint for Better Healthcare in Queensland. In particular, the Commission of Audit recommended that the Industrial Relations Act be updated to ensure it is modern, flexible and relevant to the public sector—that was recommendation 130; that awards continue to provide the basis for public sector wages and conditions—however, only matters not covered by legislation or Public Service directives should be included; and that certified agreements only contain wages and conditions for specific groups of employees which are outside award conditions and which are linked to improvements in productivity and performance. All certified agreements are to be approved by the Public Service Commission. I want to talk about some of the contributions from honourable members, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, who I note surprisingly is opposing this legislation. The opposition leader and other opposition members have indicated they are opposing the legislation. I think they are opposing it because the opposition leader referenced a few things in her speech—mainly unions, sticking up for the rights of the unions. It is not about workers’ rights or public servants’ rights; it is all about the unions. Of course we know that at this time of year the opposition leader is flying around Queensland announcing all sorts of preselections all over the place. So any support that the opposition leader can give to any particular unions in this state—tick a box because, as long as the unions are positively mentioned in this place, preselections depend on it, even for the member for Woodridge sitting over there, who we know— Mrs Scott interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: Have you been preselected yet, because the talk of the town is that Cameron Dick is coming for Woodridge? Cameron Dick is coming for Woodridge. But I have also heard the member for Woodridge wants to hang in there and does not just want to give it to Cameron Dick. I have heard that the member for Rockhampton might be in a little bit of trouble because for the last 18
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3970 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill months he has not shown much competence in his role, such an important role, as shadow minister for police. How can you have a shadow minister for police advocating for police and opposing juvenile justice reforms and boot camps in his own electorate? So we know that for the Labor Party, for the seven opposite, it is all about the unions. It is all about the unions in this state. On that note, when the opposition leader was talking about this bill she made sure she ticked all the boxes for the preselections. So Alex Scott got a mention. Beth Mohle of the Nurses Union got a mention. I was listing the unions as she was speaking. I had a big box there. I wrote at the top ‘Inala preselection—Labor preselections depend on the following unions’. The Nurses Union got a mention by the opposition leader—tick. Alex Scott got a mention—tick. We know that they would have been outside at the rally this afternoon. Incidentally, talking about the rally this afternoon and all the different types of people out there, there were a couple of hundred people out there—the same couple of hundred who were there a few weeks ago and the same couple of hundred who were there 12 months ago. But what I have noticed with the union protest is that the numbers are getting fewer and fewer. The membership of the union protest out the front is in steep decline. We know that as the opposition leader flies around the state and announces all these recycled candidates like Kerry Shine, for goodness sake, for Toowoomba— all these recycled has-beens— Ms Palaszczuk: Oh, wait for Kawana. I’ve got a good one for you. Mr BLEIJIE: They said ‘wait for Kawana’ in 2012. They threw up a fellow from Brisbane, so I am still waiting. I am still waiting. I say to the Labor Party I think they have their priorities wrong in this state. The opposition leader said in the paper 18 months ago, when she became the opposition leader, that the Labor Party of Queensland need to ‘renew and refresh’. ‘They got it so wrong,’ she said. ‘They got it so wrong.’ So the renewal and the refreshing and the reinvigoration of the Labor Party is to recycle all the people who got them into trouble in the first place—like the Kerry Shines of the world. There are some other former members— Mr Minnikin: Where’s Peter? Mr BLEIJIE: Well, Peter Beattie— Honourable members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order, members! Mr BLEIJIE: ‘Smart State 1’ might just run for Bundamba perhaps. ‘Smart State 1’ may run for Bundamba. Opposition members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting. There is too much noise. Order, those on my left! Mr BLEIJIE: I was going to say that— Opposition members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! Those on my left! Mr BLEIJIE:—the Labor Party in Queensland might rehash a couple of the recycled federal Labor candidates, and I note they already have. One candidate in one particular area—I think it may be Burleigh—is a recycled federal Labor candidate. We also have Kerry Shine sitting out there, who made some very unpleasant remarks about women victims many years ago. For the Labor Party that espouses the rights— Mrs Miller interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: The member for Bundamba will want to hear this. For the Labor Party that espouses the rights of women to preselect Kerry Shine, considering the remarks he made some years ago about women who were raped in this state, I think is testament— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Attorney-General, resume your seat. The Attorney-General will return to the bill, please. Mr BLEIJIE: If I may explain, the correlation between what I am talking about and the bill is industrial relations, jobs and opportunities, and renewal of the industrial relations sector—and, of course, members of parliament are elected. I make the point that in her presentation tonight the opposition leader was talking very much about unions and the role that unions play. We know that the
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3971 Other Legislation Amendment Bill opposition leader could not care less for workers’ rights in Queensland; it is about Alex Scott and the other unions and what is in it for them. The opposition leader talked about what this government has done in the last 18 months in the space of union accountability. Everything we have done about union accountability has been to empower grassroots members of the Public Service to discover information about their unions that has been withheld from them for many years. For most of her contribution, the Labor opposition leader spoke about the industrial relations accountability legislation that we passed some months ago. While the opposition leader drew attention to that, let me draw attention to it. Tonight we have had the union heavyweights protesting and speaking about workers’ rights and the opportunities for workers in Queensland. When they were on the microphones at the rally tonight talking about workers’ rights and the pay of workers in Queensland did they say that they, the union thugs, are some of the most highly paid individuals in the state of Queensland? Did Alex Scott tell the workers outside that he was on over $200,000 a year? In all the protests that he has participated in over the last year did Alex Scott say that he spent $120,000 on Facebook advertising for the union? No! Did Alex Scott or other union officials stand up in front of a camera and say, ‘We don’t want union members, grassroots members, to know what we get up to. So we are going to set up a capitalist company, a corporation, to hide from the government’s legislation and filter members’ money to this company’? The legislature was then forced to change the legislation to stop that happening. The unions in Queensland do not want to be accountable. They have never been accountable and they do not want to be. By association, the Labor Party are condemned for that inability of accountability because those seven members opposite rely on the preselections and the union support. Members will find this particularly interesting. The Labor Party federally have just re-established their new structure to elect their federal leader. They go and vote. The majority of members vote but then they are still outnumbered by the lesser members of the federal parliamentary wing despite— Ms PALASZCZUK: I rise to a point of order. This has nothing at all to do with the bill before the House. He is talking about federal elections. Mr BLEIJIE: I was referring to comments made by the opposition leader. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am listening to the Attorney-General. He has returned to the bill. The Attorney-General has the call. Mr BLEIJIE: It is fine for the opposition leader to take a point of order now. However, for most of her contribution she spoke about the industrial accountability legislation that was passed some time ago and union accountability. I am now responding to the debate conducted by the Leader of the Opposition. Talking about the new structure for the Labor Party, the federal leader is voted in by a majority of the members, but then the federal Labor politicians, who did not actually receive a high numbers of votes, still end up choosing their leader. Interestingly, the opposition leader was quoted a week or two ago on this matter and on whether Queensland Labor should have the same system of election. Yes, the opposition leader agreed but with one fundamental change: the unions should have a say in the election of the Queensland Labor Party leader. They do not at the federal level, but now at the state level the opposition leader, Ms Annastacia Palaszczuk, the member for Inala, says that the unions have to be involved in this process. Is it any wonder then that the Labor Party opposition leader and those opposite come in here tonight bragging about how great all these union leaders are, because their preselections are coming up? They all should stand condemned for coming into this place and hiding under the guise of workers’ rights because all they are on about is their own jobs and the jobs of the militant union thugs in this state of Queensland, who are getting paid much more than all the members, who want to hide their money and who have no accountability, no transparency and no integrity. That is what the Labor Party is on about. Mr Byrne interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: If he has not faced his preselection already, Mr Byrne, the member for Rockhampton, will face the challengers of the unions. The advice to the member for Rockhampton is this: if you have not worked out the Labor Party already, if the unions do not like you, you are not going to last. The only reason the member for Bundamba has lasted is because she spoke out against asset sales, otherwise the member for Bundamba would have been on the chopping block. The member for Bundamba was on the chopping block until she came in here and made a speech about how great the ETU was, ‘I don’t agree with asset sales. Anna Bligh has got it wrong. Andrew
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3972 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
Fraser has got it wrong. The state Labor Party has got it wrong.’ That is the reason the member for Bundamba survived a preselection. The member for Bundamba has been challenged before for preselection and survived. Mrs Miller: Always won. Mr BLEIJIE: ‘Always won,’ she says, but there is always next time. Mrs Miller interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: Let’s hope the member for Bundamba gets what she deserves in terms of preselection and gets booted out of the Labor Party preselection because she is incompetent. The member for Bundamba is incompetent. The member for Bundamba has no future in any senior position in the Queensland Labor Party. The member for Bundamba should stand condemned in this place. Mrs Miller interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: She has no future and no worthwhile opportunity in this parliament. The member for Bundamba makes no worthwhile contribution in this place. The people of Bundamba should stand up at the next election and send the member for Bundamba packing. Mrs Miller interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: She abuses the processes of this parliament—absolutely abuses the processes of this parliament. She is incompetent but, as someone famously once said, everyone rises to their level of incompetence. The member for Bundamba rose to that level many years ago. Honourable members interjected. Mrs Miller interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting. The Attorney-General has the call. Mr BLEIJIE: I take the interjection from the member for Bundamba. Mr Shorten: Which one? Mr BLEIJIE: There were many. I cannot recall which one, but I take them all. If the member for Bundamba has shown anything, particularly to new members in this House, it is how not to be an elected official in this place, how not to advocate for her constituents in this place. If there is one thing about all these people on this side— Honourable members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members, there are too many interjections. Mr BLEIJIE:—of the House, if there is one thing about the LNP on this side, we do not come into this place owing favours to militant union thugs. Honourable members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members will cease interjecting. Mr BLEIJIE: We do not have preselections depending on militant union thugs like the ETU. Opposition members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Those on my left! Mr BLEIJIE: The ETU relies on the support of the member for Bundamba and the member for Bundamba relies on the support of the ETU. That is what this debate is about. It is not about the workers’ right for the member for Bundamba, it is not about the workers’ right for the Labor Party; it is about your job. That is all you care about, member for Bundamba. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Attorney-General will direct his comments through the chair, please. Mr BLEIJIE: Absolutely. I now turn to other contributions from honourable members this evening. The Labor Party came into this place and said that this is not about harmonised laws. I would not ordinarily positively admit to this, but a lot of these laws are copies of federal Labor laws. Perhaps I stand condemned for bringing such legislation into this place. If the federal Labor Party understood that unions’ roles in the workplace are not as they should have been, then so should the Queensland Labor Party. If Rudd and Gillard can understand it, why can’t Mrs Miller, the member for Bundamba? If Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd can understand it, why can’t you?
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3973 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
Mrs Miller interjected.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! Order! The Attorney-General will take his seat. The member for Bundamba will withdraw those comments. They are unparliamentary. Mrs MILLER: I withdraw. Mr BLEIJIE: So as I was saying, the Leader of the Opposition comes into this place and talks about workers’ rights, goes out onto the stage in protest with a few hundred people out in front of the House, but never has the courage to tell the people of Queensland what this is really about. I suspect there are dodgy deals between the Labor Party of Queensland and unions in this state. Across Australia we have seen dodgy deals with the Labor Party. Mrs Miller interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: I take the member for Bundamba’s interjection. Let me explain it a little for you. Have you heard— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Attorney will speak to the chair. Mr BLEIJIE:—of the HSU? Has the member for Bundamba heard of the HSU? Mrs Miller: Have you ever heard of Scott Driscoll? Mr BLEIJIE: Have you heard of the HSU, the Health Services Union? Has the member for Bundamba heard of the HSU and the scandal surrounding that particular union? Has the member for Bundamba heard about— Mrs Miller interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There are too many interjections! Mr BLEIJIE:—Craig Thomson? Has the member for Bundamba heard about Big Bill Ludwig and the $50,000 of union members’ money that paid for his personal legal fees? Has the member for Bundamba heard about the union spending over $100,000 in travel? Mr Emerson: Have they heard of Gordon Nuttall? Mr BLEIJIE: Yes, I take the interjection from the honourable transport minister, who tells me about Gordon Nuttall— Mrs Miller interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There are too many interjections. Member for Bundamba— Mr BLEIJIE: Mr Deputy Speaker— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Attorney-General will resume his seat. I warn the member for Bundamba under 253A for her incessant interjecting and not taking the guidance of the chair. The Attorney-General has the call. Mr BLEIJIE: I take the interjection from the honourable minister for transport before I was rudely interrupted by the member for Bundamba. What was your interjection? Yes, that’s right: Gordon Nuttall. The minister asked if the member for Bundamba had heard of Gordon Nuttall. I suspect so, because she was his parliamentary secretary. The member for Bundamba was the assistant to the corrupt former minister Gordon Nuttall. Interestingly, when the honourable Health minister was debating tonight and talking about the member for Bundamba being the former assistant to the corrupt former minister Gordon Nuttall, the member for Bundamba interjected. I recall this specifically because I was watching it, I heard it and I saw it. She said, ‘And I was the assistant to Anna Bligh as well.’ The member for Bundamba has such a proud history of serving one of the most failed premiers of this state. You will recall that Anna Bligh was the Treasurer who drove the state economy off the cliff in the first place before Andrew Fraser got hold of it. Then the member for Bundamba, not wanting to remember anything in history, stood up, made an interjection and so proudly said, ‘And I was the assistant to Anna Bligh.’ The member for Bundamba has not learned anything— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Attorney-General will return to the bill. Mr BLEIJIE: I cannot even remember what the bill is. I return now to the industrial relations harmonisation bill that we are debating tonight and the comments that the Leader of the Opposition was making. She was supporting unions and the dodgy deals that they do in Queensland and all the
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3974 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill money they spend: $120,000 on Facebook advertising; $200,000 for the Nurses Union and the Teachers Union; hundreds of thousands of dollars in travel expenses across the state—the list goes on. In fact, I recall in parliament some time ago I read out a list of all the extreme expenses that the unions were spending in this state. I raise it in this debate for quite a serious reason. We have union officials out there tonight, including Mr John Battams from the QCU, fighting for workers’ rights—despite the fact that workers’ rights are not being taken away—and fighting for all sorts of rights. There were people outside the front of this House tonight who wore masks and made threats to parliamentarians, and the Labor Party want to be associated with those types of people. My question to the Leader of the Opposition is: did you address the crowd tonight? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Attorney-General will speak through the chair. I have asked you three times. Mr BLEIJIE: Did the opposition leader address the crowd at the protest tonight? That is the question for the Leader of the Opposition, and I note that she does not want to answer it. She does not want to answer the question of whether she addressed the protest. Ms Palaszczuk interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: I am asking the question because there were people out there in masks tonight who are associated with a particular global organisation which threatens and intimidates people by the masks they wear and which has recently been the subject of some media attention in Queensland. The opposition leader wants to hold their hands, sing Kumbaya and be associated with those people, and I think that is shameful. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition should actually have a look at the crowd to see who is in it before she so blatantly and enthusiastically supports these types of rallies. Interestingly, amongst some of the other people who I saw outside was Debbie Kilroy from Sisters Inside. I raise that because I had a meeting with Debbie Kilroy last week where she said that she would like to work in a cooperative arrangement with the government on reforms in the prison sector and that she wanted to have a good working relationship with the government, but then she stands outside with the protesters and says all sorts of nasty things about the government. What sort of cooperative arrangement is that? Mr Kempton: It is the Labor way! Mr BLEIJIE: It is the Labor way! I take the interjection. I think what the member for Cook means is that the Labor way is a flip flop way. They say one thing to your face, and then they turn around and say something completely different to someone else. I suspect that what the Leader of the Opposition would tell the protesters there tonight is different than when she goes into a room with union heavyweights and thugs and talks about who is going to be preselected and who owes who which favours. You cannot tell me that a recycled Kerry Shine did not get there because union heavyweight faction warlords want him there. The member for Burleigh is in the House tonight. As I understand it, member for Burleigh, the Labor Party have preselected someone for your electorate who is a recycled federal Labor Party candidate; is that correct? Mr Hart: Failed Labor candidate! Mr BLEIJIE: Ha, ha! So we have the member for Burleigh who now has running against him a failed Labor Party federal candidate; we have the member for Cook sitting there who now has a failed Labor federal candidate running against him. Where is the talent pool in the Labor Party? Show us the talent! Because it is not sitting in the Woodridge seat; it is not sitting in the Rockhampton seat; and it is certainly not sitting in the Inala— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Attorney-General will resume his seat. The Attorney-General will return to the bill. Mr BLEIJIE: The point that I am making is that all honourable members should recall the contribution from the Leader of the Opposition, because I fear— A government member: You do not fear anything! Mr BLEIJIE: I do not fear anything! I suspect it is one of the last contributions that the opposition leader will be making as the opposition leader in the state of Queensland, because we know the word around town is that Woodridge has had the knock on the door from Cameron Dick, and Cameron Dick is coming through and the opposition leader is buying time. If honourable members want to know the rationale for my assessment, is it any wonder why the opposition leader
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3975 Other Legislation Amendment Bill only last week stood up in front of a camera and said, ‘We should reform how Labor leaders are elected, but we want to make sure the unions have a say in the leadership election of the Queensland Labor Party.’ That is quite different from the federal Labor leadership. I do feel a little sorry for the opposition leader, because I know that the six sitting behind her want the job but they know they cannot have the job because they are too incompetent. The only one who can really do the job is sitting outside the chamber. Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time.
AYES, 63—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Cavallucci, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens
NOES, 12—Byrne, Douglas, Hopper, Katter, Knuth, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Miller, Scott Resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail Clause 1— Ms PALASZCZUK (9.18 pm): The opposition actually rejects the short title of this bill, because we do not believe that there is any harmonisation with the Fair Work Act. Therefore, we will be opposing the short title of the bill. Division: Question put—That clause 1, as read, stand part of the bill.
AYES, 60—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Cavallucci, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens
NOES, 10—Byrne, Douglas, Knuth, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Miller, Scott Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clause 2, as read, agreed to. Clause 3— Ms PALASZCZUK (9.24 pm): In relation to this clause, this division amends the Industrial Relations Act 1999. I understand that it removes clauses from the existing act in relation to promoting and facilitating the regulation of employment by awards and agreements and promoting collective bargaining and establishing the primacy of collective agreements over individual agreements. This is the fundamental stripping of core elements of a modern, cooperative, productive industrial relations system. It again demonstrates the absolute lack of understanding from this government about what a cooperative system looks like and how workplace relationships actually operate. Division: Question put—That clause 3, as read, stand part of the bill.
AYES, 60—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Cavallucci, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens
NOES, 10—Byrne, Douglas, Knuth, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Miller, Scott Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 3, as read, agreed to. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! With the leave of the House, for all future divisions on this bill the division bells will ring for one minute. Clauses 4 to 6, as read, agreed to. Clause 7—
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3976 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
Mr BLEIJIE (9.32 pm): I move the following amendments— 1 Clause 7 (Insertion of new ch 2A) Page 25, lines 10 to 12— omit, insert— Notes— 1 See part 3 for provisions about the content of a modern industrial instrument. 2 In particular, under section 71OI a modern industrial instrument must not contain provisions that are inconsistent with the Queensland Employment Standards. However, particular provisions may be included if their effect is no less favourable to an employee than the Queensland Employment Standards (see section 71NA). 2 Clause 7 (Insertion of new ch 2A) Page 55, line 13, ‘71GS’ omit, insert— 71GR 3 Clause 7 (Insertion of new ch 2A) Page 66, line 20, ‘5 and 6’— omit, insert— 7 and 8 4 Clause 7 (Insertion of new ch 2A) Page 69, line 19, ‘2’— omit, insert— 4 5 Clause 7 (Insertion of new ch 2A) Page 70, line 11, ‘3’— omit, insert— 5 6 Clause 7 (Insertion of new ch 2A) Page 73, lines 1 and 3, ‘4’— omit, insert— 6 7 Clause 7 (Insertion of new ch 2A) Page 76, lines 1 and 4, ‘5’— omit, insert— 7 8 Clause 7 (Insertion of new ch 2A) Page 78, line 5, ‘6’— omit, insert— 8 9 Clause 7 (Insertion of new ch 2A) Page 78, line 11, ‘5’— omit, insert— 7 10 Clause 7 (Insertion of new ch 2A) Page 78, line 16, ‘7’— omit, insert— 9 11 Clause 7 (Insertion of new ch 2A) Page 83, line 3, after ‘that is’— insert— a 12 Clause 7 (Insertion of new ch 2A) Page 92, lines 2 and 3, ‘at the employee’s base rate of pay’— omit, insert— on the basis of the employee’s weeks pay
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3977 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
13 Clause 7 (Insertion of new ch 2A) Page 96, lines 21 and 22, from ‘written’ to ‘days’— omit, insert— 28 days’ written notice I table the explanatory notes for such amendments. Tabled paper: Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes to Hon. Jarrod Bleijie’s amendments [4077]. Amendments agreed to. Ms PALASZCZUK: This is a very large section of the bill. It deals with numerous provisions especially in relation to what the government has termed ‘modern employment conditions’. This clause inserts a new chapter that contains several key examples of employees being stripped of their rights and conditions. It removes rights and protections that currently are in place for workers who might not be covered by an existing award. Rather than provide for protections on limits to the requirements for hours of work, the proposed changes would see the details determined between employer and employee, particularly in circumstances where an employee does not come under an existing modern industrial instrument. The protections in relation to limits on hours should be maintained. This is another example of this government removing the rights of those who can be in the most need of support. This clause also reduces redundancy provisions in enforceable agreements, which I addressed in some depth in my speech earlier. I know that the LNP members like to go on that workers will not be hurt because redundancy provisions exist in other instruments, but ministerial directives are able to be changed unilaterally by the Attorney-General. This clause also contains the very damaging approach to collective agreements, imposing significant limits on the matters that are allowed to be included in agreements even if employees and employers would otherwise agree. These requirements are inconsistent with the Fair Work Act. These provisions do not exist in federal legislation or other state jurisdictions. It is an extreme approach by this government that has not made a single mention about any of these changes before the last state election. The opposition will be opposing this clause. Division: Question put—That clause 7, as amended, be agreed to.
AYES, 59—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Cavallucci, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens
NOES, 11—Byrne, Cunningham, Douglas, Knuth, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Miller, Scott Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 7, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 8 to 25— Mr BLEIJIE (9.38 pm): I seek leave to move amendments en bloc. Leave granted. Mr BLEIJIE: I move the following amendments— 14 Clause 17 (Insertion of new ch 5A) Page 129, lines 10 and 11, from ‘subsection’ to ‘(j)’— omit, insert— subsection (2)(a) to (d), (h) and (i) 15 Clause 17 (Insertion of new ch 5A) Page 132, line 7, ‘A’— omit, insert— Subject to section 824, a 16 Clause 17 (Insertion of new ch 5A) Page 132, lines 12 to 19— omit.
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3978 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
17 Clause 17 (Insertion of new ch 5A) Page 132, line 20, ‘(4)’— omit, insert (3) 18 Clause 22 (Amendment of s 143 (Proposed parties to be advised when agreement is proposed)) Page 145, line 28, after ‘certified agreement’— insert— or a determination under subdivision 3 19 Clause 22 (Amendment of s 143 (Proposed parties to be advised when agreement is proposed) Page 145, line 30, after ‘agreement’— insert— or determination Amendments agreed to. Clauses 8 to 25, as amended, agreed to. Clause 26— Ms PALASZCZUK (9.39 pm): I addressed this issue in quite some depth in my speech earlier today. This clause strips workers of their rights to take protected industrial action. It is a fundamental right of workers to be able to withdraw their labour. The LNP claims that the right exists on paper, but there is no rational explanation that has been provided as to how it would operate in reality. The opposition will be opposing this clause. Division: Question put—That clause 26, as read, stand part of the bill.
AYES, 59—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Cavallucci, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens
NOES, 13—Byrne, Cunningham, Douglas, Hopper, Katter, Knuth, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Miller, Scott Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 26, as read, agreed to. Clauses 27 to 41— Mr BLEIJIE (9.43 pm): I seek leave to move amendments en bloc. Leave granted. Mr BLEIJIE: I move the following amendments— 20 Clause 28 (Replacement of s 149 (Arbitration if conciliation unsuccessful)) Page 153, lines 5 to 8, from ‘give’ to ‘ends.’— omit, insert— , on the day that is 14 days after the conciliation period for the matter ends— (a) give the conciliation report to the vice-president; and (b) give a copy of the conciliation report to each negotiating party. 21 Clause 28 (Replacement of s 149 (Arbitration if conciliation unsuccessful)) Page 154, line 32, ‘president’— omit, insert— vice-president 22 Clause 31 (Replacement of s 155 (Right of employee organisation to be heard)) Page 160, line 8, after ‘entitled’— insert— to Amendments agreed to. Clauses 27 to 41, as amended, agreed to. Clause 42—
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3979 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
Mr BLEIJIE (9.43 pm): I move the following amendments— 23 Clause 42 (Insertion of new ch 6A) Page 166, lines 5 to 16— omit, insert— A high-income position is a position or class of position— (a) under which the remuneration of an employee engaged in the position, or a position in the class, is more than the high-income threshold; and (b) that— (i) is prescribed under a regulation as a high-income position or class of position; or (ii) is not covered by an award; or (iii) is a position, or a position in the class, in which a senior health service employee is engaged under the Hospital and Health Boards Act 2011. 24 Clause 42 (Insertion of new ch 6A) Page 170, line 22, ‘is made’— omit, insert— takes effect 25 Clause 42 (Insertion of new ch 6A) Page 170, line 34, after ‘no effect’— insert— in relation to the employee 26 Clause 42 (Insertion of new ch 6A) Page 172, line 21, ‘Offering high-income guarantee contract’— omit, insert— Particular conduct is 27 Clause 42 (Insertion of new ch 6A) Page 175, line 1, ‘Medical practitioner’s’— omit, insert— Employee’s 28 Clause 42 (Insertion of new ch 6A) Page 175, line 3, ‘a medical practitioner’— omit, insert— an employee 29 Clause 42 (Insertion of new ch 6A) Page 175, lines 5 to 12, from ‘that—’ to ‘practitioner.’ omit, insert— that recognises the employee’s continuous service. 30 Clause 42 (Insertion of new ch 6A) Page 175, lines 13 to 18— omit, insert— (2) The refusal to accept the high-income guarantee contract does not— (a) constitute a termination of the employee’s employment; or (b) entitle the employee to any redundancy payment, severance allowance or other separation benefits (however described). Amendments agreed to. Ms PALASZCZUK: I spoke about this at length during my speech earlier today. This goes to the very heart of the issues that are having a huge impact, especially in our hospitals, in particular where workers are going to be placed on individual contracts. We have already spoken at length about the impact this will have in relation to doctors and senior nurses. I addressed in quite some detail the testimony that was provided by both the Queensland Nurses Union and the AMA to the public hearing at which I was in attendance. Once again I want to place on the public record that there is concern that many doctors and senior nurses will leave the health system. They will go interstate or they will work privately. At the hearing people said that this would put huge pressures on the public health system throughout this state. That would not be good for the people, especially in regional and remote communities, who rely very much on having those essential services.
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3980 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
The other major issue that was addressed during that hearing was that of fatigue. Allowing for adequate breaks for our senior doctors so that they are rested for when they actually have to perform their duties goes to the heart of safety. This was another issue that was raised and discussed at the public hearing. The opposition cannot vote with the government in relation to this clause. We will be opposing this clause because we believe, with the nurses union and the AMA, that this is going to stretch our public health system and will result in people leaving our public health system and that is not a good thing for Queensland. Mr BLEIJIE: I reject the assertions made by the opposition leader. If anything this will promote and protect our public health system. It will encourage people to participate in our public health system. The Fair Work Act harmonisation legislation and the Fair Work Act acknowledges the fact that high income earners, those on over $129,300, should be on individual contracts. This is the first time I have ever heard the Labor Party in this place stick up for high income earners in this state. It is quite a contrast to their usual talk in this place. Apart from when it comes to union bosses, as I indicated in my earlier contribution. They stick up for Alex Scott who is on $205,000 and spent $129,000 on Facebook advertising. It is all about the Labor Party sticking up for union heavyweights and thugs. Beth Mohle from the nurses union has been quoted again tonight. It is all because the preselections of the member for Inala rely on those individual union members. Division: Question put—That clause 42, as amended, be agreed to. AYES, 61—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Cavallucci, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens
NOES, 12—Byrne, Douglas, Hopper, Katter, Knuth, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Miller, Scott Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 42, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 43 to 52, as read, agreed to. Clause 53— Ms PALASZCZUK (9.51 pm): This clause is an amendment of section 258A, appointment of other deputy presidents of the commission. This clause will allow for temporary appointments to the QIRC. It is a fundamental tenet of the separation of powers that those who are charged to make independent decisions should not be in their positions on the continuing whim of the executive. We do not believe that this is good practice at all in relation to industrial relations, nor broader operations of independent decision making. Therefore, the opposition will be opposing clause 53. Mr BLEIJIE: With respect to the provision for appointing part-time commissioners, we want to make sure that our courts and tribunals are economically responsible in terms of the number of people we have on them. From time to time people are appointed to the QIRC, but they have tenure until they are 70 years of age. With the award modernisation process that will take place following the movement of this bill, there will be an influx of work for the award modernisation process. We need to be able to appoint part-time commissioners to deal with what we suspect will be the award modernisation process and the additional work. I know the honourable health minister is working to have his lot first through the QIRC. There is precedent for this because, under the old system, the QIRC used to appoint part-time commissioners in any event. Then they went to full-time tenure till 70 years of age. My understanding is that it has happened in the past. We did not want to appoint a bunch of people to the age of 70, because there will not be enough work for them to do and we want to make sure that we save Queensland taxpayer money. We will do that by appointing part-time commissioners for a period, rather than full-time commissioners until the age of 70. Division: Question put—That clause 53, as read, stand part of the bill. AYES, 61—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Cavallucci, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens
NOES, 11—Byrne, Douglas, Hopper, Knuth, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Miller, Scott Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 53, as read, agreed to.
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3981 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
Clauses 54 to 74— Mr BLEIJIE (9.56 pm): I seek leave to move the following amendments en bloc. Leave granted. Mr BLEIJIE: I move the following amendments— 31 Clause 61 (Amendment of s 320 (Basis of decisions of the commission and magistrates)) Page 182, lines 5 and 6, from ‘the full bench’ to ‘public interest.’— omit, insert— that must be considered, in relation to the public interest, by the commission (either the full bench or, if the vice- president makes a direction under section 149B(2), the commission constituted by a commissioner sitting alone). 32 After clause 63 Page 182, after line 16— insert— 63A Amendment of s 351 (Functions) (1) Section 351(2)— renumber as section 351(4). (2) Section 351— insert— (2) Also, an inspector’s functions include investigating and monitoring compliance with chapter 12, part 12. (3) For subsection (2), an investigation may be undertaken regardless of whether— (a) the registrar has investigated the matter under chapter 12, part 12, division 5; or (b) a complaint about the matter has been referred to the inspector under section 636G. (3) Section 351(4), as renumbered, ‘doing so’— omit, insert— the performance of his or her functions 33 After clause 65 Page 183, after line 20— insert— 65A Amendment of s 410 (Meaning of corporation for ch 12) Section 410(2), ‘However’— omit, insert— Except for the purposes of the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999, parts 3 to 5, 34 After clause 70 Page 184, after line 12— insert— 70A Amendment of s 532 (Obligation to admit) Section 532(1)(b), ‘court’— omit, insert— commission 70B Amendment of s 533 (Obligation to give union card) Section 533(2), ‘court’— omit, insert— commission 35 After clause 74 Page 185, after line 31— insert— 74A Amendment of s 795 (Existing rules of an organisation) Section 795(3)— insert— Note— See also section 834A in relation to the reference in this subsection to action taken by a court under chapter 12, part 5.
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3982 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
Amendments agreed to. Clauses 54 to 74, as amended, agreed to. Clause 75— Ms PALASZCZUK (9.57 pm): I move the following amendments— 1 Clause 75 (Insertion of new ch 20, pt 18) Page 194, lines 4 to 13— omit. 2 Clause 75 (Insertion of new ch 20, pt 18) Page 194, lines 22 to 29— omit, insert— (2) The commission must continue to deal with, and determine, the matter under chapter 5, part 2 of the pre-amended Act. 3 Clause 75 (Insertion of new ch 20, pt 18) Page 194, after line 29— insert— 822A Queensland Fire and Rescue Service Auxiliary Employees Interim Award—State 2013 Despite any other provision of this Act, the commission must continue to hear, and determine, the proceeding identified as A/2013/2 (The Queensland Fire and Rescue Service Auxiliary Employees Interim Award—State 2013) under the pre-amended Act as if this Act had not been amended by the amending Act. I table the explanatory notes to the amendments. Tabled paper: Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes to Ms Annastacia Palaszczuk’s amendments [4078]. We seek a bit of clarification in relation to auxiliary firefighters. Could the Attorney-General explain whether his amendments have, in fact, covered off what I am now proposing, and I will quickly run through it. The Labor opposition agrees with the intent of this amendment, but the Attorney’s explanation in introducing the amendments this afternoon was unclear. He appeared to back away from his statement as he went along. The opposition, as discussed in the committee hearing, believes that the circumstances of the auxiliary firefighters demonstrate the ill-thought-out nature of the legislation. It would be nonsensical to have the QIRC do so much work on developing an award only for the retrospective nature of this legislation to cut them out. Can the Attorney-General please make it clear that the purpose and result of this amendment will ensure that awards for auxiliary firefighters and Indigenous police roles will be permitted to be progressed? Essentially, amendment No. 2 and amendment No. 3 follow on from that train of thought. I wish to clarify with the Attorney-General: I understand that the office of the Deputy Premier, Jeff Seeney, wrote a letter to Mr John Oliver, the state secretary of the United Firefighters Union, giving an assurance that this amendment would be taken care of in relation to the bill and the amendments being discussed here today. The letter states— This second amendment will list a limited number who will be exempt, including auxiliary firefighters, from the proposal in section 821(1)&(2) of the Bill, whereby if ‘an award, or an amendment of an award, made under section 125 on or after the introduction day and before the commencement is of no effect.’ My question is that it appears that the government has given an assurance to the United Firefighters Union of Australia that indeed they will be covered. I did meet with some of the firefighters during the rally. They were concerned about whether or not they were now fully covered in relation to the amendment that has been put by the Attorney-General. However, if that is not the case, I believe the amendments that I have moved do cover off the concerns and would satisfy the letter that was sent by the office of the Hon. Jeff Seeney to Mr John Oliver, the state secretary. With those few words, I seek some clarification about this important issue from the Attorney-General this evening. Mr BLEIJIE: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. I understand the auxiliary firefighters were negotiating their award process. As I understand it, a few days ago Commissioner Fisher from the QIRC approved their award, but the transitional provisions in the bill say that if by the time of introduction to the debate or passing of assent to the bill, it is not going to be relevant. What I have committed to in the bill and to the auxiliary firefighters is that, as part of the request, I am happy to make the first request for the award modernisation process the auxiliary firefighters. In the work that is being conducted we will put that in the official request that will go to the QIRC. We will prioritise it. Therefore, they will be able to have some certainty around that award modernisation process.
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3983 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
There are transitional provisions in the legislation that are likely to directly affect a number of matters, including the auxiliary firefighters award. The interest of the employees caught by these transitional provisions will be able to be pursued further as part of the award modernisation process, as I said. It is appropriate, then, that consideration be given to prioritising matters affected by the transitional provisions in the bill in the drafting of the minister’s request, that is, my request, to the vice-president of the QIRC to commence the award modernisation process. So we will work with the auxiliary firefighters with their award process, but I think the best thing is that we keep the transitional period because if we change it for one we change it for all. I have committed to making sure that, through the award modernisation process, they will be one of the first tranche through. Division: Question put—That the amendments be agreed to.
AYES, 12—Byrne, Cunningham, Douglas, Hopper, Knuth, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Miller, Scott
NOES, 60—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Cavallucci, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens Resolved in the negative. Non-government amendments (Ms Palaszczuk) negatived. Mr BLEIJIE: I move the following amendments— 36 Clause 75 (Insertion of new ch 20, pt 18) Page 195, lines 12 and 13, ‘pre-modernisation certified agreement’— omit, insert— continuing agreement or determination 37 Clause 75 (Insertion of new ch 20, pt 18) Page 195, lines 17 and 18, ‘pre-modernisation certified agreement’— omit, insert— continuing agreement or determination 38 Clause 75 (Insertion of new ch 20, pt 18) Page 195, lines 19 to 30— omit, insert— (2) In this section— continuing agreement or determination means either of the following to which section 826 applies— (a) a certified agreement; (b) an arbitration determination under chapter 6. 39 Clause 75 (Insertion of new ch 20, pt 18) Page 200, after line 16— insert— 833A References to decision by commission of membership disputes (1) This section applies if, before the commencement, an application was made to the court for decision of a question or dispute under chapter 12, part 10, division 2. (2) Sections 532 and 533 apply from the commencement as if a reference to— (a) the referral of a question or dispute to the commission included a reference to the referral of the question or dispute to the court; and (b) a decision or order of the commission under chapter 12, part 10, division 2 included a reference to a decision or order of the court under the division in relation to the application. (3) For subsection (2)(b), it does not matter whether the decision or order is made by the court before, on or after the commencement. 40 Clause 75 (Insertion of new ch 20, pt 18) Page 200, after line 21— insert— 834A Reference to action taken by court under ch 12, pt 5 Section 795(3) applies from the commencement as if a reference in the section to a court included a reference to the commission. Amendments agreed to.
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3984 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
Division: Question put—That clause 75, as amended, be agreed to.
AYES, 61—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Cavallucci, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens
NOES, 11—Byrne, Douglas, Hopper, Knuth, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Miller, Scott Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 75, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 76 to 136— Mr BLEIJIE (10.10 pm): I seek leave to move the following amendments en bloc. Leave granted. Mr BLEIJIE: I move the following amendments— 41 Clause 76 (Amendment of sch 2 (Appointments)) Page 201, lines 23 to 27— omit, insert— (3) Schedule 2, section 4A(1), from ‘, the vice president’ to ‘ombudsman’— omit. (4) Schedule 2, section 4A— insert— (1A) The president may grant leave, other than leave mentioned in the pensions Act, section 15, to the vice-president. (5) Schedule 2, section 4A(1A) and (2)— renumber as schedule 2, section 4A(2) and (3). 42 Clause 78 (Amendment of sch 4 (Provisions for protected action ballots)) Page 202, line 11, ‘omit,’— omit. 43 Clause 78 (Amendment of sch 4 (Provisions for protected action ballots)) Page 202, line 15, ‘a’— omit. 44 Clause 80 (Amendment of sch 5 (Dictionary)) Page 204, line 20, ‘4’— omit, insert— 6 45 Clause 80 (Amendment of sch 5 (Dictionary)) Page 205, lines 22 and 23— omit. 46 Clause 80 (Amendment of sch 5 (Dictionary)) Page 206, after line 17— insert— maximum period of parental leave, for chapter 2A, see section 71GG. 47 Clause 80 (Amendment of sch 5 (Dictionary)) Page 210, after line 14— insert— (4A) Schedule 5, definition industrial instrument, after paragraph (a)— insert— (aa) for chapter 6A—see section 188; and (4B) Schedule 5, definition ordinary rate, from ‘, means’— omit, insert— , means— (a) for sections 71EE(2)(a) and 71HE(1)(b), if the employee is a public service employee—the rate the instrument, award or agreement states is payable for ordinary time in relation to the employee’s substantive position; or (b) otherwise—the rate the instrument, award or agreement states is payable for ordinary time.
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 19 Nov 2013 3985 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
48 Clause 87 (Amendment of s 47 (Health service directives)) Page 212, lines 2 and 3— omit, insert— (1) Section 47(1)(d), after ‘employment’— insert— matters (other than conditions of employment for health service employees) 49 Clause 88 (Insertion of new pt 3, div 2A) Page 213, line 1, ‘the minimum’— omit. 50 Clause 88 (Insertion of new pt 3, div 2A) Page 214, line 3, ‘1958’— omit, insert— 2008 51 Clause 94 (Insertion of new pt 5, div 2, sdiv 2 and sdiv 3, hdg) Page 218, lines 4 to 11— omit, insert— (1) A senior health service employee is a health service employee employed in a position— (a) under which the remuneration is more than the high-income threshold; and (b) that is prescribed under a regulation as a senior health service employee position. 52 Clause 94 (Insertion of new pt 5, div 2, sdiv 2 and sdiv 3, hdg) Page 218, line 12, ‘(3)’— omit, insert— (2) 53 Clause 94 (Insertion of new pt 5, div 2, sdiv 2 and sdiv 3, hdg) Page 218, line 17, ‘at the classification level’— omit, insert— by persons employed in the position 54 Clause 94 (Insertion of new pt 5, div 2, sdiv 2 and sdiv 3, hdg) Page 218, line 18, ‘(4)’— omit, insert— (3) 55 Clause 103 (Insertion of new pt 13, div 4) Page 223, line 13, ‘provision’— omit, insert— provisions 56 Clause 103 (Insertion of new pt 13, div 4) Page 223, after line 22— insert— 321 Existing health service directives about conditions of employment (1) This section applies to a health service directive that— (a) is in effect immediately before the commencement of this section under previous section 47; and (b) is about the terms and conditions of employment for health service employees. (2) Previous section 47 continues to apply in relation to the health service directive despite the amendment of that section by the Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2013. (3) The health service directive continues in effect until the earlier of the following to happen— (a) the chief executive revokes the directive; (b) the directive is replaced by a health employment directive. (4) This section expires on 31 December 2014. (5) In this section— previous section 47 means section 47 as it was in force immediately before the commencement of this section.
Industrial Relations (Fair Work Act Harmonisation No. 2) and 3986 19 Nov 2013 Other Legislation Amendment Bill
57 Clause 119 (Amendment of s 2 (Interpretation)) Page 231, after line 15— insert— (3) Section 2, definition CEO, ‘6DA’— omit, insert— 6A Amendments agreed to. Clauses 76 to 136, as amended, agreed to. Schedule— Mr BLEIJIE (10.10 pm): I seek leave to move an amendment outside the long title of the bill. Leave granted. Mr BLEIJIE: I move the following amendment— 58 Schedule 1 (Minor and consequential amendments) Page 249, after line 6— insert— Building and Construction Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) Act 1991 1 Section 56(3)(b), after ‘53(3)’— insert— or 71HQ(3) 2 Section 61(1)(b), after ‘part 3’— insert— , or chapter 2A, part 2, division 6, 3 Section 61(1)(b), ‘that part’— omit, insert— those provisions 4 Section 61(4), after ‘part 3’— insert— or chapter 2A, part 2, division 6, 5 Section 61(4), after ‘section 56’— insert— or 71HT 6 Section 62(9), from ‘Industrial’ to ‘requires)’— omit, insert— LSL payment provisions 7 Section 62— insert— (10) In this section— LSL payment provisions means the following provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1999— (a) if chapter 2 of that Act applies to the worker—section 46 or 49, as the case requires; (b) if chapter 2A of that Act applies to the worker—chapter 2A, part 2, division 6, subdivision 5 or section 71HL, as the case requires. Child Employment Act 2006 1 Sections 15A(2)(b) and 15B(3), definition employment entitlements and protections, paragraph (b), after ‘Full Bench,’— insert— or chapter 2A, part 2, Amendment agreed to. Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) and Other 19 Nov 2013 3987 Legislation Amendment Bill
Third Reading Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (10.11 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. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (10.12 pm): I move— That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to.
CRIMINAL LAW (CRIMINAL ORGANISATIONS DISRUPTION) AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
Introduction Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (10.12 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Bail Act 1980, the Corrective Services Act 2006, the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001, the Criminal Code, the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002, the District Court of Queensland Act 1967, the Electrical Safety Act 2002, the Evidence Act 1977, the Justices Act 1886, the Liquor Act 1992, the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, the Police Service Administration Act 1990, the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991, the Racing Act 2002, the Second-hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act 2003, the Security Providers Act 1993, the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991, the Tattoo Parlours Act 2013, the Tow Truck Act 1973, the Transport Planning and Coordination Act 1994, the Transport Planning and Coordination Regulation 2005, the Weapons Act 1990 and the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 for particular purposes. I table the bill and the explanatory notes. I nominate the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee to consider the bill. Tabled paper: Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 [4079]. Tabled paper: Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, explanatory notes [4080]. A government member: Oh, sending it to a committee. Hear, hear! Mr BLEIJIE: Wait for it. I am pleased to introduce the Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. The bill is phase 2 of the Newman government’s commitment to tackle organised crime in Queensland. Until recently, Queensland communities were the unfortunate victims, suffering from the unwanted encroachment of criminal motorcycle gangs into their day-to-day lives. Violence, intimidation and criminal activity are the hallmarks of criminal motorcycle gangs, and they are now being met with a legislative brick wall that ensures their unwanted activities find no place to rest and no place to take hold. Initially, through a package of reforms introduced and passed in October of this year, the government acted quickly to enact new laws aimed at running criminal motorcycle gangs out of Queensland. These legislative reforms are contained in three acts: the Tattoo Parlours Act 2013, the Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 and the Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) Amendment Act 2013. This bill takes the previous reforms a step further as at that time we flagged that this was necessary to drive criminal gangs out of Queensland. The bill includes amendments to a number of acts to prevent identified participants in criminal organisations from obtaining or holding a licence, permit or certificate under various industry licensing regimes. This includes the Electrical Safety Act 2002, the Liquor Act 1992, the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991, the Racing Act 2002, the Second-hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act 2003, the Security Providers Act 1993, the Tow Truck Act 1973, the Weapons Act 1990 and the Work Health and Safety Act 2011.
Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) and Other 3988 19 Nov 2013 Legislation Amendment Bill
The same amendments are proposed for used motor dealer licences but are contained in the Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Bill 2013, which will be introduced into the Legislative Assembly later this week. In addition, the Tattoo Parlours Act 2013 is being amended to further ensure that the confidentiality of criminal intelligence is maintained in any review proceeding initiated under the act. The bill amends the recently inserted section 16(3A) of the Bail Act 1980 to extend the circumstances when a defendant, charged with any offence, must show cause as to why their detention in custody is not justified. In a recent bail application, the Supreme Court held that the time at which an applicant must be a participant in a criminal organisation, if the show cause provision in new section 16(3A) of the Bail Act is to apply, is at the time of the bail application. If an individual chooses to be part of a criminal organisation, then it is reasonable for the legislature to deem that individual an on-going risk to the community in lieu of evidence to the contrary. The fact that an individual has ceased to be a member of the criminal organisation may be a relevant factor for the court to consider when determining whether the defendant has shown cause as to why they should not be detained. An individual who purports to resign their membership from a criminal organisation or disassociate from the organisation is best placed to prove that fact. The bill amends section 16(3A) of the Bail Act to ensure that a defendant, charged with any offence, must show cause as to why their detention in custody is not justified where it is alleged the defendant is, or at any time has been, a participant in a criminal organisation. The amendment deems such individuals to be an on-going risk with regard to bail considerations. Requiring the Crown to allege the circumstance of participation rather than prove the circumstance as a fact is consistent with the evidentiary requirements of section 16(3). Section 16(3A) commenced operation on 17 October 2013. It is a provision which regulates the grant of bail and, as a procedural law, appropriately operates retrospectively. However, given subsection (3A) has the effect of removing the presumption for bail, the operation of the subsection will be clarified in the bill as applying to offences committed before 17 October 2013. The bill amends the Justices Act 1886, the Bail Act 1980, the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 and the Criminal Code to enhance the ability of the courts to use audiovisual technology. As a result, the bill includes technical amendments to the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 and the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991. The amendments will also assist the Chief Magistrate to ensure that all contested bail applications for defendants in a show cause situation, owing to their alleged connection with a criminal organisation, can be heard in the Brisbane Magistrates Court. The bill removes the requirement for parties to consent to the use of video or audio links for the defendant’s appearance in criminal proceedings in the courts. The discretion will lie with the court to use such links where it is in the interests of justice to do so. The bill enables video and audio links in the Magistrates Court to be used across the various districts of the court for all proceedings, thereby enabling greater use of links in remote and regional areas. The bill amends the Bail Act 1980 to provide for the conduct of a bail proceeding by a Magistrates Court outside the district in which the bail proceeding would otherwise be required to be held where a practice direction is made by the Chief Magistrate permitting this. The bill amends the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 to enhance the ability of the Crime and Misconduct Commission to effectively deal with criminal organisations by complementing and clarifying the expanded powers of the CMC to hold intelligence hearings about criminal organisations; expanding the definition of a former participant in a criminal organisation to include persons who were a participant in the preceding two years; providing for confidentiality of CMC operations and investigations; and including safeguards to ensure no unfairness is caused to a respondent who is a defendant in later criminal proceedings as a result of the use in a confiscation proceeding against the respondent under the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 of any compelled self-incriminating evidence given by the respondent in a CMC hearing or investigation. The bill also includes an amendment to the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 unrelated to criminal organisations that will facilitate the ongoing operations of the CMC by allowing for the appointment of acting part-time commissioners by the Governor in Council. The bill amends the Corrective Services Act 2006 to create a mandatory criminal organisation segregation order. The criminal organisation segregation order will ensure an appropriate and effective response to the activities of criminal motorcycle gangs from within prison. This amendment
Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) and Other 19 Nov 2013 3989 Legislation Amendment Bill gives effect to the restricted management regime for criminal motorcycle gang prison including restricted associations, strict management protocols and sanctions such as restricted out-of-cell hours, increased drug testing and cell searches, no TVs in cells, no access to gymnasium facilities, and up to only one-hour non-contact visits with family members per week. Other amendments will ensure offenders under supervision in the community who are members of a criminal organisation may be subjected to electronic monitoring, movement restrictions and drug testing requirements. Another act amended in the bill is the Transport Planning and Coordination Act 1994 to further enhance community safety by providing that the chief executive of the Department of Transport and Main Roads can give to the head of an approved agency any or all information held in a database maintained by the department. The bill will allow the Department of Transport and Main Roads to release information it holds to ASIO including details about vehicle registrations and about the holders of drivers’ licences, including photographs of those licence holders. ASIO’s access to and use of the information will be subject to a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Transport and Main Roads and the rigorous controls that govern ASIO at the federal level. Providing access to this information will assist ASIO not only in its preparations for the G20 summit but also in its ongoing role of monitoring and protecting national security. Finally, the bill amends the Police Service Administration Act 1990. The Police Commissioner will be given discretion to disclose to an entity the criminal history of a current or former participant in a criminal organisation where the commissioner is satisfied it is in the public interest. In combination, these amendments will ensure that criminal motorcycle gangs are driven out of licensed occupations and activities in Queensland and that participants in criminal organisations are dealt with through the courts and prisons in a manner that accords with the risk they pose to the community. It is imperative that this bill be passed as a matter of urgency to ensure the public are protected from the serious criminal activities of criminal gangs. I commend the bill to the House.
First Reading Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (10.22 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Question put—That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time.
Referral to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! In accordance with standing order 131, the bill is now referred to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee.
Portfolio Committee, Reporting Date Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (10.22 pm), by leave, without notice: I move— That under the provisions of standing order 136 the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee report to the House on the Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill by 10 am on Thursday, 21 November 2013. Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.23 pm): The opposition will be opposing the urgent nature of this bill. Mr Crandon: Surprise, surprise! Ms PALASZCZUK: There is no need for those interjections. I can speak. The Attorney-General has just tabled approximately 180—let me get the exact number of pages so I am not misleading, even though my eyesight is not the best—175 pages of legislation in the Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. For the last 10 minutes I have been listening to the Attorney-General and there is a range of amendments to— Mr Crandon interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Coomera!
Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) and Other 3990 19 Nov 2013 Legislation Amendment Bill
Ms PALASZCZUK:—various acts being proposed. It is not just amendments to the Crime and Misconduct Act; there are amendments to do with the District Court of Queensland, the Electrical Safety Act, the Justices Act, the Evidence Act, the Liquor Act, the Penalties and Sentences Act, the Police Service Administration Act, the Queensland Building Services Authority Act, the Racing Act, the Second-hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act, the Security Providers Act, the Tattoo Parlours Act, the Supreme Court of Queensland Act, the Tow Truck Act, the Workplace Health and Safety Act, the Weapons Act, the Transport Planning and Coordination Act and the Transport Planning and Coordination Regulation—and the list goes on. In all fairness I hardly think it is reasonable for a committee to consider tomorrow—and I am not aware at the moment what matters are currently before the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee. It usually starts about 9 am on a Wednesday morning and then parliament resumes later that afternoon. So there is no notice to any stakeholders who may want to appear before the committee. Mr Pitt: There was a press release. Ms PALASZCZUK: Sorry, that is right. There was a press release sometime earlier this afternoon. There was no notice given. We are here at 20 past 10 on a Tuesday evening. No notice is able to be given so that anyone interested can come and ask questions in relation to this bill. Mrs Miller interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: This is absolute arrogance, as the member for Bundamba said. Then we are expected, as good members of parliament, to analyse these bills and to then come in here and make reasoned decisions without the proper scrutiny of a committee. This is all to be done in a short turnaround period so the bill can be back before this House by 10 am on Thursday, if my recollection is correct. This is completely unacceptable. We are already aware of a matter which I understand will come before the House at 11 o’clock on Thursday. It is a very sensitive matter, a very serious matter, which needs the proper scrutiny of this House. Now we have the prospect of having this rushed through. The arrogance of this Attorney! We have already seen that there were mistakes in the original legislation because it was rammed through without the scrutiny of this parliament. Now, one day—tomorrow—is given to the proper scrutiny a 180-page bill. This is nonsense. It absolutely absurd to rush this through in the last sitting of parliament of the year. If it were so important, why was this not raised earlier today? Why is it being raised in the darkness of night, late in the evening at 10.25? Mr Bleijie interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: No, there is absolutely no scrutiny by this Attorney-General, and he expects the members of the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee to be able to comprehend 180 pages before they go to a committee hearing at 10 am. Government members interjected. Ms PALASZCZUK: They have obviously already been briefed on it of course. Forgive me. Has any notice been given to the Bar Association to appear? Has any notice been given to the Law Society to appear? Has any comment on these 180 pages been sought from the Chief Justice? I do not think so. I would sincerely doubt that these organisations have had a legitimate enough reading of this legislation to be able to make an informed judgement. But no, this government is not interested in informed judgements. It is not interested in listening to the community views of stakeholders. Its approach is basically to pass the laws and ask questions later. Mr Pitt: What’s the old saying? ‘Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on ours.’ Ms PALASZCZUK: I take the interjection from the Manager of Opposition Business. In conclusion, it is absolutely astounding that we would have a late-night delivery of this bill of over 180 pages and for it to be brought back in on Thursday, the same day that we will be considering a very serious matter the report of which was tabled by the chair of the Ethics Committee today. I assume that matter would take up a considerable amount of time of this parliament because of its sensitive nature. What we will see in this last week is bills being rushed through by this government once again without scrutiny. If you think that four or five hours is proper scrutiny, you have got to be kidding. The opposition will be opposing the urgent nature of the bill. The fact that they want to turn this around in a
Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) and Other 19 Nov 2013 3991 Legislation Amendment Bill couple of days—within 48 hours—is completely unacceptable, and it is not fair to Queenslanders. It is not fair to the members of this parliament who want to do their job. The members of this parliament do not even have the opportunity to go out into their communities to talk to constituents about aspects that are contained in this bill, because you are looking at amending, from what I can see here, approximately over a dozen different bills. We will be opposing the urgent nature of this motion. Hon. JP BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (10.30 pm): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have just witnessed the most hypocrisy that I have seen in this place. We have talked about hypocrisy from the Labor Party for many years, but I have just witnessed it. On 15 October, when I introduced the VLAD legislation, the tattoo parlours legislation and the gangs disruption legislation, I have just read Hansard on my mobile phone and the opposition leader said, ‘There is no reason’— Ms Palaszczuk: Table it! Opposition members: Table it! Mr BLEIJIE: Hansard is a public record. You can go and get the Hansard. The opposition leader said ‘The legal affairs committee is meeting tomorrow, and there is no reason why they cannot consider the bills tomorrow.’ Mr PITT: I rise to a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! The Attorney-General will resume his seat. What is your point of order? Mr PITT: Through other precedents that we have seen in this parliament, I ask that the Attorney-General table the device that he’s— Mr BLEIJIE: I read a note from my mobile phone. How ridiculous is the opposition member: he calls himself the Manager of Opposition Business and that is how he behaves. The opposition leader said on 15 October, ‘The legal affairs committee is meeting tomorrow. They can consider the bill.’ What has changed for the Leader of the Opposition from 15 October? I am just saying the opposition leader said— Mr PITT: I rise to a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the Attorney-General could take his seat. Mr PITT: This Attorney-General has moved an urgency motion. This motion should be put. Mr BLEIJIE: There is no urgency motion. It is referred off to a committee. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the Attorney could take his seat. Mr BLEIJIE: I have 29 minutes left. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will come back to the Attorney. Division: Question put—That the Attorney’s mobile device be tabled.
AYES, 10—Byrne, Douglas, Knuth, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Miller, Scott
NOES, 60—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens Resolved in the negative. Mr BLEIJIE: As I was saying, only a few weeks ago during debate of the urgency motion for the criminal gangs disruption bill, the Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Bill and the Tattoo Parlours Bill, the opposition leader said that it was rushed legislation and that we should not be doing it. She spoke about the arrogance of the government and the arrogance of the Attorney-General. She then said, essentially, ‘but it will be all okay if you refer it to the committee. The committee is meeting tomorrow. They can have a look at the legislation.’ And then they would be okay with the urgency. Well, what has changed in the space of two weeks? The opposition leader is a hypocrite—an absolute hypocrite. Two weeks ago it was okay for the Legal Affairs Committee to meet the next day and look at three bills. This is one bill, and I have complete confidence in the chairman, Mr Ian Berry, and am confident that his committee will be able to engage with the bill, have a look at the bill— Mr Berry: We are working.
Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) and Other 3992 19 Nov 2013 Legislation Amendment Bill
Mr BLEIJIE: He says that he is already working on the bill. I congratulate the member for Ipswich on that. It is great to see that the chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee is already onto the bill, looking at all of the details, as the committee should. I am really surprised that the opposition would now actually oppose a bill going to a committee. We seem to not be able to win with this opposition. If we do not refer to a committee and pass bills through the House they complain about the process of not referring to a committee. Then they offer the opportunity for bills to be referred to a committee, even for a day. Then the government comes in here in good faith and says, ‘Here is the bill. We are referring it to a committee for a day.’ The opposition just cannot be satisfied. Nothing can satisfy the opposition leader. Nothing can satisfy the Labor Party. And then they asked why we are doing this at 10.30 at night. Well, I would have done it a lot earlier had the opposition leader not divided on every clause of the previous bill. They were wasting that time. I would have moved this motion two or three hours ago, but I wanted to make sure parliamentarians had the appropriate time to finish debate on the industrial relations bill. The reason we did not do it earlier is that they divided on clause 1 of a 130-clause bill. Mr Stevens: For no purpose. Mr BLEIJIE: For no purpose. I take the interjection of the Leader of the House. The opposition leader cannot now say, ‘It is getting late. It is past my bedtime. I have had to send my 22 staff members home for the night.’ If the opposition cannot be effective at 10.30 at night, how can they be effective at 10 o’clock in the morning? What is the use of them even being there? If they cannot be an effective opposition 24/7, why are they even here? Are they on the old Dolly Parton scheme, working nine to five? With this opposition it is probably more like 10 till two in terms of— Mr Stevens: Ten til’ five past 10. Mr BLEIJIE: I take that interjection from the Leader of the House. They are so lazy. Collectively, the opposition leader and the opposition members in this place are so lazy. They debate the fact that they do not want to have a debate. They debate the fact that we are sending this bill off to a committee. They just debate. I enjoy debate. Like anyone in this place I enjoy a good debate. It is often good to have someone to combat and debate with, but we cannot because we have the best resourced but laziest opposition in this country. Mr Stevens: In history. Mr BLEIJIE: In the history of this state and in history. When the likes of the member for South Brisbane get elected, nothing changes. She was a good mate of Anna Bligh. Factional warlords got her the job. Ms Trad interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: The member for South Brisbane will want to hear this. The member for South Brisbane is a very good personal friend of Anna Bligh, the former Premier. She probably got her the job. There was probably no preselection—just waltzed straight in to the job as member for South Brisbane. Following in the footsteps of her great mentor, Anna Bligh, who would be one of the worst— Mr Stevens interjected. Mr BLEIJIE: I take the interjection from the Leader of the House in relation to the member for South Brisbane. She is probably the most disliked member of those opposite— Mr Stevens: In the Labor Party! Mr BLEIJIE: Amongst her own Labor Party! They say many things, but what we say tonight is that we would have done it earlier. I would have— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order! The Attorney-General will return to the motion. Mr BLEIJIE: I would have done it earlier, had the Labor Party not divided and wasted every available opportunity in the past three hours. As I said, the Leader of the Opposition is an absolute hypocrite. She came into this place two or three weeks ago and said that they would have supported the urgency motion if the bills had gone to a committee. We now have a bill going off to the committee. The fundamental element here—the biggest issue in this debate—is that the opposition leader and the Labor Party once and for all this week will have an opportunity to tell this House and to tell Queenslanders whether they are on the side of criminal gangs or Queenslanders. They have to stop flip-flopping on this issue. They will have an opportunity to stop flip-flopping on this issue. Every time
Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) and Other 19 Nov 2013 3993 Legislation Amendment Bill one of them is interviewed on the ABC or by any of our media in Queensland they have a different position. Not only that, if the member for South Brisbane is interviewed on one day she gives one set of stories but on the second day on the same program she gives a second set of stories. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Attorney-General will return to the motion. It is the last time I will ask him. Mr BLEIJIE: The motion before the House refers the bill to the Legal Affairs Committee for one day. The contents of the bill are so important for the future of Queensland, in ridding Queensland of criminal motorcycle gang members, that they are worthy of the debate tonight. It is worth explaining to honourable members why we are referring the bill to the committee for one day. Ms Trad: One day. Mr BLEIJIE: Yes, one day. One day was accepted by the Leader of the Opposition three weeks ago. Ms Trad: Half a day! Mr BLEIJIE: I take the interjection from the member for South Brisbane. The motion is that the bill be referred to the committee tomorrow and that they report by 10 o’clock on Thursday. The member for South Brisbane says, ‘That is a half day.’ It is over 24 hours. When I went to school there were 24 hours in a day. Of course, half a day is not 24 hours; it is 12 hours. If the honourable member for South Brisbane thinks, in her education—wherever she was educated—that over a day is somehow 12 hours, I question the member’s ability to perform her functions in this place. I question the member’s ability to perform her functions in this place if she cannot get the simple calculations right. It is completely appropriate. I have absolute confidence in the members of the Legal Affairs Committee, which is made up of experienced members of this House. I have every confidence that they will be able to look at this legislation and assist in combating the issues of criminal motorcycle gang members in this state. Some 99 per cent of these law reforms that this bill covers are new. They are the second tranche of attacking criminal motorcycle gang members in this state. As the Premier and members of this side of the House have gone around Queensland and talked to Queenslanders about the impact of these laws and the effect they are having on criminal motorcycle gang members—one only has to look at motorcycle gang members to see what effect— Honourable members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Robinson): Order, members! The Attorney has the call. Mr BLEIJIE: We only have to look at what the criminal motorcycle gang members are doing through their lawyers with their cashed up resources, as we all know. Mr Stevens: Does Damien work for them? Mr BLEIJIE: I take the interjection from the Leader of the House. Perhaps there may be other conflicts of interest the member for South Brisbane will have to disclose. We are waiting for an explanation, but we have not had it from the member for South Brisbane today. Ms TRAD: I rise to a point of order. Mr BLEIJIE: Here is the explanation. Ms TRAD: I find the remarks personally offensive and I ask for them to be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has taken offence and asked that the— Mr BLEIJIE: Withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:—Attorney would withdraw. I also remind the Attorney of the motion before the House. Mr BLEIJIE: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are referring this bill to a committee. As I have said, I have complete confidence in the members of the committee, which is made up of all sides of parliament. I note that during the last debate the opposition leader and the Independent member for Nicklin raised the fact as to how the committee would go with a day. I am hoping as a sign of good faith the government is showing that we will send the bill off for at least a day so that committee members can get their teeth into it. Not only that, we have the most over-resourced opposition in the world. Its members can get their teeth into it tonight I suspect, have a good read of the legislation and talk to their stakeholders and people tomorrow about the legislation. So we say it is
3994 Adjournment 19 Nov 2013
as simple as this: the Queensland opposition, the Labor Party in this state, has to work out which side it is on—criminal gangs or Queenslanders. Do members know what? The Liberal-National government will always choose the side of Queenslanders. Division: Question put—That the motion be agreed to.
AYES, 61—Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Cavallucci, Choat, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Holswich, Johnson, Kempton, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Millard, Minnikin, Molhoek, Ostapovitch, Powell, Pucci, Rickuss, Ruthenberg, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Smith, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trout, Watts, Woodforth, Young. Tellers: Kaye, Menkens
NOES, 10—Byrne, Douglas, Knuth, Mulherin, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Trad, Wellington. Tellers: Miller, Scott Resolved in the affirmative.
MOTION
Driscoll, Mr SN, Order to Attend the Bar of the House Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (Leader of the House) (10.57 pm), by leave, without notice: I move— (1) The House note that the order circulated in my name, specifying the charges of contempt against Mr Driscoll and requiring that Mr Driscoll attend at the Bar of this House on Thursday, 21 November 2013 specified 11.30 am, rather than 11.00 am as per the motion agreed to by the House. (2) That the House confirm that the order specifying the charges of contempt against Mr Driscoll and requiring Mr Driscoll attend at the Bar of this House on Thursday, 21 November 2013 is at 11.00 am and the order be amended accordingly. Question put—That the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT Mr STEVENS (Mermaid Beach—LNP) (Leader of the House) (10.59 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn.
Fitzroy River, Crocodile Sightings Mr BYRNE (Rockhampton—ALP) (10.59 pm): I have previously risen in this House and raised the issue with the government over large crocodiles in the freshwater reaches of the Fitzroy River in Rockhampton. I would have thought my views on this matter were unequivocal and align strongly with recent comments made by the Premier. The Premier is quoted in the Cairns Post as saying— We’re not going to stand by and allow Queenslanders to be put at risk by these animals. I fully support the Premier, as I stated in the House on 12 February this year. Recently we have witnessed the Premier and the environment minister having crocodile photo ops up and down the coast, but still nothing has been done about the large crocodiles inhabiting the freshwater town reaches of the Fitzroy River. I will make this short. There are large, dangerous animals in the vicinity of where children are learning to waterski, row and use watercraft of all descriptions. Water skiers, life savers, outriggers and rowers are all at risk. Clearly the department is incapable of fulfilling its responsibility to my community. Allow me to read some excerpts from a recent email I received. It states— I took my sons around Fitzroy on our jet skis. What a wonderful natural asset. On our return we arrived at a point about 500 m from the Laurel Banks Ski Gardens, where the boys had stopped on the north side of the river and were pointing to the bank. I arrived at their position to see what the commotion was about. In the water, close to the bank was the biggest saltwater crocodile I have seen in the wild. Approximately 3 to 4m. When we arrived at the ski gardens— which is just down the river a little bit— there were people in the water skiing. I feel this is an unacceptable risk to the general public. Surely a removal program can be implemented to rectify this situation and maintain a reasonable level of safety for water sports enthusiasts in the area of this river. Thousands of people on a weekly basis are being exposed to this risk. The author of this email is one Mr Bryan Smith of Rocky’s Own Transport company. Brian has been well known to me through his company’s great work supporting military exercises in Central Queensland. He was one of the member for Keppel’s delegates at the Queensland Plan, so he is hardly a Labor Party plant. In light of
19 Nov 2013 Adjournment 3995
Bryan’s approach to me and other recent reports of sightings, I have endeavoured to contact the local departmental officers. What sort of reply did I get at the time? The departmental officers could only talk to me if they had clearance from the minister. As far as I know, I am the only member of parliament who has raised this issue specifically in this House and there has been no action from the minister’s department in terms of dealing with this issue over an extended period. Let me make this really clear for one final time: the day that a child is attacked or worse, the minister and other ministers of this government will not need to be worrying about being protected from bikie gangs. How many times do I have to flag this issue in this House before the minister does something? What disgraceful inaction from this government, which does not give a toss about my community. (Time expired)
Mount Ommaney Electorate Mrs SMITH (Mount Ommaney—LNP) (11.02 pm): It is a pleasure to rise tonight to talk about the positive impacts that the LNP government is having on the electorate of Mount Ommaney. In the past 18 months the decision that this government has made to grow a four-pillar economy is starting to bear fruit as there is a brighter, more prosperous future under the Newman government—unlike the doom, gloom and negativity that we saw under Labor. The ABS figures came out on 7 November. They show that Queensland has the fastest growing state economy for 2014-15, growing at an average of four per cent over the next three years. This growth can be seen in Mount Ommaney, with new businesses opening. We have had the 10th on West open, Mocha Living open, the cake icing shop open as well as Aldi planning to open a new store in the next couple of weeks. That means jobs, that means growth in our local economy and that is supporting the ABS figures. We have also seen ABS figures relating to housing affordability. They show that Brisbane has the most affordable housing in any of the mainland capital cities in Australia. Again, that statistic can be seen around in my electorate of Mount Ommaney. As I drive around the electorate I can see not only the ‘for sale’ signs going up but, more importantly, the ‘sold’ signs. That has also been supported by local bank managers and real estate agents. Our tough approach on crime has been well supported by the electorate of Mount Ommaney. I table a letter from one of my constituents, who is thankful for the law. He has come from a background where he had seen just a tailspin of government imposing curfews because of the anarchy that was going on. He absolutely supports Queensland government’s stand against the bikie criminal gangs, because he knows how dangerous it is when you allow lawless elements to thumb their nose at the law of the land. I will table that document. Tabled paper: Email, dated 19 November 2013, to Tarnya Smith from Steve Smith, forwarding two emails, dated 9 November 2013, from Viet Tran, regarding $4.3 million funding for the Centenary of Anzac Day, and a letter to the editor of the Australian from Viet Tran [4081]. Also, the police stations in my electorate have thrown their support behind our tough stance on crime. All in all, I am looking forward to continuing to build on this momentum and going from strength to strength in 2014. At the end of the day, Queensland is a great state with great opportunities.
Morayfield Electorate, Bike Bus; Morayfield East State School Mr GRIMWADE (Morayfield—LNP) (11.05 pm): The safety of our kids while getting to and from school is a high priority for me. Last week I joined my colleague in the Queensland parliament the member for Barron River, Michael Trout, to undertake a bike bus tour with the deputy principal of Trinity Beach State School. For the honourable members who do not know what a bike bus is, it is a program design by that school where the deputy principal and teachers coordinate a route to and from school. The teachers and the community get involved with the children in safely getting them to school through supervision. So they start at one end of the bike route and stop along about seven or eight bike bus stops along the way where mums and dads can hand over their children to a teacher or a deputy principal who then supervise those children to ride safely to school. I first met Mr Allen, the deputy principal of that school, during a review into cycling that the Queensland government was conducting. I found the program to be of high interest. What interested me most about the bike bus program was that it reduces congestion around schools, it gives our kids
3996 Adjournment 19 Nov 2013
an active lifestyle, it creates relationships between the deputy principals, the teachers, the school community and the parents and, obviously, teaches kids road safety. I want to see a number of those really good initiatives that come out of this bike bus program implemented. Mark Allen, the Deputy Principal of Trinity Beach State School, is an absolute champion of the bike bus. At one stage he broke the Guinness world record in getting the greatest number of kids to and from school. Mark is a champion guy. If we had 2,000 more Mark Allens in our schools the state would be a better place. I challenged him that I would roll out this program in my electorate of Morayfield and, hopefully, one day one of my schools will break his world record. I want to lobby the minister in regard to some funding for this program to ensure that we can roll out the bike bus to every single school around Queensland. One of the schools in my electorate will be running a pilot program very shortly. The other area that I want to touch on relates to child safety. Just the other day Ken Bradley, who is the local Neighbourhood Watch chairperson for Morayfield East and Judy Menary, the Principal of Morayfield East State School, joined me to officially open the school crossing flashing lights outside the school. As we know, this government has committed to spend around $10 million over a four-year period to install flashing lights at our schools. Morayfield East State School secured funding for those flashing lights. Through a partnership with the Neighbourhood Watch, the school community via the principal and I, we were able to get a really good outcome in getting those lights installed. We have had some very positive feedback. Child safety and getting kids to and from school is a big priority for me and I want to continue to rock on with this throughout the next 12 months.
Arts Funding Ms TRAD (South Brisbane—ALP) (11.08 pm): The Newman government has continued its savage attack against the arts sector in Queensland. Following in the footsteps of the former arts minister, the member for Mudgeeraba, who ripped over $12.4 million out of the arts grants in the Newman government’s first budget, this month the new arts minister defunded 15 arts organisations and approved significant cuts to many more. It is another broken promise from the LNP which, during the election campaign, promised that there would be no cuts in funding to the arts sector. In fact, the then shadow arts minister, Scott Emerson, said on ABC Radio just five days before the 2015 state election— Our commitment is not to cut funding for the arts at all. We’re committed to maintaining the funding for the arts. Yet again, the LNP has become so consumed by its own arrogance that it thinks that it can get away with breaking the promises that it made to the Queensland people. It is clear that youth arts organisations have unfairly borne the brunt of the latest round of Campbell Newman’s cuts, with Youth Arts Queensland, Backbone Youth Arts, Feral Arts and Contact Inc. all defunded. These cuts will have long-term ramifications for the arts and cultural sectors in Queensland. Not only will creative and artistic young people leave Queensland if their talents are not supported but also, ultimately, more young Queenslanders will lose access to the educational, physical and emotional benefits that come with participating in the arts and creative industries. The Newman government has also cut funding for Queensland’s only all-female performing arts company, Vulcana Women’s Circus, which is based at the Brisbane Powerhouse. This is devastating news for an arts company that has operated for 17 years and has a proud history of supporting talented women, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, including adults and children with disabilities, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, the Queensland deaf community and women who have experienced domestic violence. The arts minister attempts to disguise these savage cuts by claiming in a media release that regional arts companies were the big winner from this latest round of funding, but even this is untrue with most small and regional companies receiving a 20 to 30 per cent loss in funding. Regional arts organisations that have had their funding cut include KickArts, Umbrella Studios and JUTE Theatre Company. It is frankly a disappointing state of affairs from an arts minister who many in the sector believed had a genuine commitment to the arts. It clearly shows that while the Newman government may say it wants an arts sector for all Queenslanders, their actions tell a different story.
Ipswich West Electorate, Schools Mr CHOAT (Ipswich West—LNP) (11.10 pm): I am proud to have 26 fantastic schools in my great electorate of Ipswich West. These schools are all very different and range from my small country schools like Clarendon and Tarampa to Ipswich State High and West Moreton Anglican
19 Nov 2013 Adjournment 3997
College. I am proud of all my schools where the communities are made up of great teachers, students, support staff and, of course, families and supporters. Last week we saw year 12 students from across the state finish their studies and their formal schooling to go out and start their lives as educated young adults. Over the past month I have attended the awards nights of all of my four high schools and have seen some fantastic, talented and very deserving young people and, indeed, teachers and school supporters recognised. Just this evening I have attended the WestMAC middle school awards night presided over by the lovely Janelle Lecinski and was once again very proud of what I saw and heard about the students there. It is no surprise given the tremendous leadership of Principal Geoff McLay and his great team. I am always impressed and members have heard me talk about the school before. Similarly, there are always great things happening at Ipswich State High where Principal Simon Riley has achieved marvellous things. I was really honoured to have been at Ipswich High on Friday for the year 12 graduation ceremony. What a great bunch of young adults. I was particularly proud to hear the speech by valedictorian Teigan Hogbin. What a great young lady. She represents her school so well. Last week I was out at Rosewood High twice. On Wednesday I sat with the year 12s for their Red Frogs session and was privileged to have addressed the year 12s, to congratulate them and to wish them well. I also attended the Beacon Foundation committee breakfast with Principal Lyn Culverhouse and her team, along with local community representatives and businesspeople. Great things are already happening at Rosewood, but 2014 will see the Beacon program do even greater things to link students with business. I look forward to supporting that particular initiative. I am similarly really pleased with what is happening over at Lowood under the stewardship of Anne McLaughlan who has joined the school this year as principal and made the world of difference. My Lowood students made me so proud at their awards night. I can see they are striving for excellence which I have no doubt they will achieve. Congratulations to all of my schools and their great staff. I want to make special mention of Principal Simon Riley who really impressed me with how he spoke at last week’s Ipswich High graduation. Simon, you have achieved so much and you are the benchmark. Class of 2013, you have made it! Aim high and continue to make our community proud.
Maryborough CBD Mrs MADDERN (Maryborough—LNP) (11.13 pm): One of the most common comments I hear is a lament about the sad state of the CBD of Maryborough and the many vacant shops in our historic centre. The causes have been numerous but the floods earlier this year contributed significantly to the current state. It is therefore very pleasing that council has taken the initiative to undertake community consultation with a view to revitalising the city centre. While I have not had a great involvement in the process due to parliamentary commitments, I support the decisions which have been taken, including the proposal to investigate a change to make Adelaide and Kent streets into one-way streets as part of a planned upgrading process. It is noted that these decisions are yet to be ratified by council. I suspect not all will agree with the decisions taken, but it is important that decisions and subsequent action be taken or the CBD will remain as it currently is. If these proposals are carried forward I believe that the CBD will provide an attractive shopping precinct. Now that council has taken this first step, it is important that they also do all they can to attract new businesses into the CBD by ensuring that council fees and charges are minimal to new businesses as incentives to establishment. If our CBD is to be truly revitalised it is also important that owners of vacant buildings in the CBD review their asking rentals and conditions. Long-term vacant buildings deteriorate both in presentation and capital value. Demand and supply rules the market and a lack of demand forces downward pressure on prices, in this case rentals. Buildings filled at initially lower rentals will ultimately result in a supply shortage with upward pressure on rentals and an increase in capital value, but this will not happen unless cold, hard decisions are taken and more businesses encouraged to take up leases. Landlords should be wary of long-term vacancies and question the reason with their managing agents, in particular whether asking rentals reflect the market demand. Finally, the state government is doing all it can to encourage business by reducing red tape, throwing out the waste management levy, changing WorkCover to reduce premiums and reducing fees for environmental levies, amongst other things. I commend all those working to achieve a positive, vibrant CBD in Maryborough. Together we can make a difference.
3998 Adjournment 19 Nov 2013
Food Allergies Mr KNUTH (Dalrymple—KAP) (11.15 pm): Allergic disease, including food allergy, is a major public health issue that Australia and indeed Queensland needs to acknowledge. One in 10 infants aged 12 months now has a food allergy. The number has been increasing dramatically over the last 15-year period. Food allergy is something we never heard of during our childhood but we have no reason to doubt that it is real in 2013. Children and adults have lost their lives to anaphylaxis in this state and every state across Australia. These deaths are largely preventable. Timely, proper diagnosis and education on daily management of the condition is what decreases the number of deaths and the number of anaphylactic reactions appearing in our emergency departments. Death from anaphylaxis can be easily prevented but so many people and children have lost their lives because of inadequate education and support. The Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy, ASCIA, the peak medical body, and the support organisation, Allergy & Anaphylaxis Australia, are reaching out to governments and asking for allergy and immune diseases to be tabled as a prioritised chronic disease group and a National Health Priority Area to assist in raising awareness nationwide. Allergic diseases impact significantly on the quality of life of those who have the condition, as well as those who care for them. Whether you are managing persistent allergic rhinitis or life-threatening anaphylaxis, these conditions impact on everyday life. Increased awareness of these conditions and improved access to patient care is vital as these numbers continue to increase and impact our community. It is ridiculous that we have just one public paediatric allergy clinic. The bandaid approach does not work for anaphylaxis or any immune disease. Allergy and immune disease needs resources at every level. This is a public health issue and the Queensland government needs to make a difference. I also call on the government to acknowledge the seriousness of anaphylaxis and ensure that every school in Queensland has adrenaline pens readily available for students and teachers. Why are allergy diseases not acknowledged like asthma, diabetes, cancer and heart disease? As well as a national approach to improving the prevention and management of these conditions, more on allergy and immune diseases in Australia can be found at www.allergy.org.au.
Algester Electorate, Events Mr SHORTEN (Algester—LNP) (11.18 pm): I would like to talk about a number of events that have been held recently in my wonderful electorate of Algester. I start by thanking the Hon. Tim Mander for his recent visit to a manufactured home park to talk to and hear from residents about their views on the survey that the minister has released concerning the Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act. It was a great meeting and a great turnout by residents of the park. There was plenty of passion in the room and the views of residents were well expressed. The feedback I have had from the residents has been overwhelmingly positive and they were very glad to be able to meet directly with the minister to speak about their concerns and suggestions. Of course, all members would be busy in their electorates at the moment, particularly at their schools either with school fetes or graduation nights. I had the honour to be able to attend Boronia Heights State School’s car show and markets. Instead of a traditional type of fete, the P&C decided to try something different, so the car show and the markets were born. What a great day, with well over 50 car displays and market stalls. The crowd was strong all day. I had the privilege of presenting a number of trophies to the car and truck owners who were voted by their peers on a number of criteria as being outstanding in their field. It was a great day and congratulations go to the president of the P&C, Shirley Gentile, and the committee on all their hard work to make this day happen. I also had the opportunity to attend the Algester State School Multifest. The multifest is the P&C’s big fundraiser for the year. It was great to help out on the drinks tent. I had a great time when I volunteered to participate in the super soaker. The super soaker is a game where a balloon full of water is placed in a basket suspended above your head. If the target is hit hard enough, the balloon is burst and, of course, you get soaked. I did a deal with Algester State School’s principal, John Enright, that if he volunteered so would I. John and I took 15 minutes each, during which time people had the opportunity to hit the target and, of course, soak us. It was great fun and we raised money for the school. The last event I would like to mention is the Grand Avenue State School fete. This year the fete was held to raise money for airconditioning for classrooms. I am told it was a great day. I put on the record my thanks to Mr Gavin Rook, the P&C president, and the P&C volunteers who work very hard. It was through their very hard work that this day was possible.
19 Nov 2013 Adjournment 3999
Steinhardt, Mrs H; Easton, Mrs E; Nerang PCYC Dr DOUGLAS (Gaven—UAP) (11.21 pm): As the year draws to a close, I would like to acknowledge tireless community workers Helen Steinhardt and Elsa Easton, and also one of the most valuable community organisations in my electorate, Nerang PCYC. Mrs Helen Steinhardt has been an outstanding advocate for people with autism and their families around Queensland for many years. She is involved with DSQ. Recently, I nominated her for the Queensland Disability Awards and it is fitting to pay tribute to her exceptional commitment over a very long period. Helen Steinhardt has been involved in a range of groups working for autism, families and siblings, and currently leads Autism Gold Coast Early Intervention Service. She is secretary of Autism Gold Coast, a registered charity that provides support to more than 600 families. Over the years, Helen has written many submissions for government funding and facilitated and organised 14 forums across the state to identify the unmet needs of families and individuals. Helen’s personal vision and belief has been that people make a difference in the lives of those with an autism spectrum disorder, ASD, and she has willingly shared her knowledge and experience as the mother of a 21-year-old son with autism with families new to autism and others on a journey similar to hers. Helen is a lifeline at the end of a phone call or email for many families who struggle with little or no access to supportive services, stress and exhaustion and who feel an immense sense of relief when they connect with someone who understands. I have also nominated Elsa Easton for a Gold Coast volunteering award in recognition of her work as a volunteer at the Nerang Police Station. Elsa was named the Gaven Electorate’s Most Community Minded Senior Citizen in 2013 and has been involved in the volunteer policing program since 2000. She performs a wide range of duties, including help with security audits, senior citizen safety presentations, the engraving of residents’ private property, car safety, a keyholder database and other duties. Sergeant Peter Gordon, who is based at the Nerang station, told me that she is absolutely invaluable and she is like having 10 police. I also pay tribute to the Nerang PCYC, which I have nominated for an award in the 2013 Gold Coast Chambers of Commerce business awards to be announced next week. I pay tribute to their initiative in encouraging a healthy and fit community in times when many in our state are suffering from obesity and a lack of motivation. At the weekend, the PCYC completed its fifth fitness challenge in the community. Working out at both the PCYC and on Burleigh beach, many members of our Nerang community have taken up the challenge to lose weight and get fit during these challenges, under the careful eye of strongman Derek Boyer, an international power-lifter. I commend the branch manager Sergeant Scott Muldoon and his team of 38 staff. Scott has worked there for nearly 20 years. I congratulate him for all the time he has done. I also congratulate all the staff.
Capricornia Training Co. Mr YOUNG (Keppel—LNP) (11.24 pm): Recently, I was given the honour of presenting awards at the Capricornia Training Co. annual awards night for 2013. The Capricornia Training Co. commenced operation in 1986. Since its inception, over 2,000 apprentices and trainees have completed qualifications. This has been achieved by the establishment of long partnering arrangements with local businesses, host employers, government agencies and other training organisations such as TAFE and the Australian Apprenticeships Centre. For more than 11 years the Capricornia Training Co. has been involved with young people at risk of disengaging from learning, whether that be at school or training, and connecting those young people with activities to support their re-engagement with learning, family and community. The awards night celebrated the achievements of the apprentices from all trade areas and from each year of recognition. It also acknowledged Indigenous apprentices and trainees, along with a host of employers, both large and small. The Capricornia Training Co. apprentice of the year was Michael Nuss and the host employer of the year was BHP BMA Mining. Each apprentice or trainee is committed to performing assigned duties safely, in accordance with safe work practices and legislative requirements, whilst demonstrating leadership by showing respect to work colleagues and peers. It is enlightening to see youth and, in some cases, at-risk disengaged youth become responsible members of the community and receive accredited training along the way. The Capricornia Training Co. is capably led by CEO Mrs Marie Keating and Mr Neil McDonell, chairman of the board. The Capricornia Training Co. is providing the trade persons for Queensland’s construction and industries future. I pass on my congratulations to all of the winners and finalists of
4000 Attendance 19 Nov 2013
the Capricornia Training Co.’s apprentice 2013 awards. It is good to see a local training company stand the test of time through sound management practices. From the humble beginnings of the first award night back in 1986, which was held in a restaurant, it now requires the largest room in the Rockhampton Leagues Club to host the many apprentices, trainees, families, friends and employers. I congratulate the Capricornia Training Co. on its success. Question put—That the House do now adjourn. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 11.26 pm.
ATTENDANCE Barton, Bates, Bennett, Berry, Bleijie, Boothman, Byrne, Cavallucci, Choat, Costigan, Cox, Crandon, Cripps, Crisafulli, Cunningham, Davies, C Davis, T Davis, Dempsey, Dickson, Dillaway, Douglas, Dowling, Driscoll, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, France, Frecklington, Gibson, Grant, Grimwade, Gulley, Hart, Hathaway, Hobbs, Holswich, Hopper, Johnson, Katter, Kaye, Kempton, Knuth, Krause, Langbroek, Latter, Maddern, Malone, Mander, McArdle, McVeigh, Menkens, Millard, Miller, Minnikin, Molhoek, Mulherin, Newman, Nicholls, Ostapovitch, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Powell, Pucci, Rice, Rickuss, Robinson, Ruthenberg, Scott, Seeney, Shorten, Shuttleworth, Simpson, Smith, Springborg, Stevens, Stewart, Stuckey, Symes, Trad, Trout, Walker, Watts, Wellington, Woodforth, Young