Finance and Administration Committee

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE

Members present: Mr PS Russo MP (Chair) Mr MJ Crandon MP Mr DJ Brown MP Mr DA Pegg MP Mr TA Perrett MP Mr PT Weir MP

Staff present: Ms A Honeyman (Research Director) Mrs M Johns (Principal Research Officer) Ms K Shalders (Executive Assistant)

PUBLIC HEARING—INQUIRY INTO THE NORTH STRADBROKE ISLAND PROTECTION AND SUSTAINABILITY AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 2015 AND THE NORTH STRADBROKE ISLAND PROTECTION AND SUSTAINABILITY (RENEWAL OF MINING LEASES) AMENDMENT BILL 2015

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FRIDAY, 8 APRIL 2016 Brisbane Public Hearing—Inquiry into the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2015 and the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability (Renewal of Mining Leases) Amendment Bill 2015

FRIDAY, 8 APRIL 2016 ______

Committee met at 10.28 am

CHAIR: Good morning. I declare this public briefing and hearing of the Finance and Administration Committee’s inquiries into the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2015 and the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability (Renewal of Mining Leases) Amendment Bill 2015 open. I am Peter Russo MP, chair of the committee and member for Sunnybank. The other members of the committee are: Mr Michael Crandon MP, member for Coomera and deputy chair; Mr Duncan Pegg MP, member for Stretton; Mr Tony Perrett MP, member for Gympie; and Mr Pat Weir MP, member for Condamine. Mr Craig Crawford MP, member for Barron River, is unavailable to attend and is replaced by Mr Don Brown MP, member for Capalaba. Dr Mark Robinson MP, member for Cleveland, is also present as he is participating in this inquiry. The purpose of this briefing is to receive evidence on the Draft North Stradbroke Island Economic Transition Strategy and the North Stradbroke Island Sand Mining Workers Assistance Scheme. The briefings and the hearing are formal proceedings of the parliament and subject to the Legislative Assembly’s standing rules and orders. The committee will not require evidence to be given under oath, but I remind you that intentionally misleading the committee is a serious offence. I remind all those in attendance at the hearing today that these proceedings are similar to parliament to the extent that the public cannot participate in the proceedings. In this regard, I remind members of the public that under the standing orders the public may be admitted to or excluded from the hearing at the discretion of the committee. Please turn mobile phones off or switch them to silent. Please note that no calls are to be taken inside the room while the proceedings are taking place. I remind committee members that departmental officers are here to provide factual or technical information. They are not here to give opinions on the merits or otherwise of government policy or alternative approaches. Any questions about government or party policy that the documents seek to implement should be directed to the responsible minister or left to debate on the floor of the House. Thank you for your attendance here today. The committee appreciates your assistance. You have previously received a copy of the instructions for witnesses, so we will take those as read. Hansard will record the proceedings and you will be provided with the transcript. The proof transcript will be placed on the committee’s website once it is available. Today’s briefings are also being broadcast live and an archived broadcast will be available soon. I remind witnesses to please speak clearly into the microphones and to state their name and position when they first address the committee.

ANDREW, Mr Matthew, Executive Director, Industry Development, Office of the Chief Economist, Department of State Development

DANN, Mr Trevor, Director, Economic Policy (Infrastructure), Economics Division, Queensland Treasury

ELLEM, Ms Danielle, Director, Industry Strategy and Policy, Office of the Chief Economist, Department of State Development

McFADYEN, Ms Catherine, Director, Economic Policy (Infrastructure), Economics Division, Queensland Treasury CHAIR: I welcome you all here again. I do not know how you want to run it, Matthew. Mr Andrew: As always, it is at the discretion of the committee. We were asked to prepare an opening statement. The directions we were given were that there were going to be fewer questions in this morning’s session than in the afternoon session. I have prepared a slightly longer than usual opening statement to read, if that is okay. CHAIR: It is advisable to start that way. Brisbane - 1 - 08 Apr 2016

Mr Andrew: Treasury have an opening statement as well. Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to attend this briefing. My name is Matthew Andrew. I am the Executive Director of Industry Development with the Department of State Development. I would like to acknowledge my colleague Danielle Ellem, who is a director in the same department. Firstly, I would like to present the background to the Draft North Stradbroke Island Economic Transition Strategy. In 2015, the Palaszczuk government announced two significant election commitments relating to North Stradbroke Island: to return to the 2019 phase-out of sandmining on the island and a funding commitment of up to $20 million over five years to transition North Stradbroke Island’s economy away from sandmining. The intent of the economic transition strategy is to support the expansion of the island’s existing industries including tourism and education to ensure a strong sustainable economy. As you all would be aware, government policy on sandmining on North Stradbroke Island has a history. In 2010, the Bligh government released plans to phase out sandmining on the island and focus on building a sustainable economy. In 2011, the Queensland government consulted with the island stakeholders to develop a three-part strategy comprising a situational analysis, an economic transition strategy and an action plan. However, due to the change in government in 2012 these documents were never finalised. The current draft strategy acknowledges the extensive consultation that was conducted in 2011 and builds on these documents. I turn now to the economic impact analysis. In 2015, the Department of State Development engaged an independent contractor to undertake an analysis of the employment and economic impacts of ending sandmining on North Stradbroke Island. The analysis sought to quantify the direct economic and employment benefits only. The indirect impact of sandmining closure on North Stradbroke Island and the broader Redland City region was explored but only qualitatively discussed in the analysis. The mining company’s employment and financial records were not analysed as part of this process as they are private documents. The analysis was conducted using public information from the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011 Census of Population and Housing data on employment and income. It should be noted by the committee that there are a number of limitations to using this data set, such as the age of the data, changes to the sandmining industry on the island since 2011 and any impacts of the mining company’s business decisions such as production rates, productivity changes and government policy. Therefore, it is very difficult to predict the impact the end of sandmining will have on the North Stradbroke Island economy due to the small size of the economy and the lack of reliable data sets. That said, the analysis found approximately 141 people are employed in sandmining operations on North Stradbroke Island and of these approximately 95 reside on the island. These direct employment estimates assume that the current rate of production will remain constant throughout the mine’s life until its operations cease. The analysis also found that sandmining operations on North Stradbroke Island generate between $62.8 million and $86 million in gross value added terms each year. It should be noted that this estimate captures the economic activity produced in the region rather than the proportion of economic activity retained in the region. With this in mind, this estimate is also likely to reflect the upper limit. Finally, the analysis also found that the tourism, construction and transportation industries are the most likely industries to absorb labour capacity in the future. I turn now to industries for growth. The draft strategy seeks to increase economic activity and employment in three sectors: sustainable tourism, education and training, and the local business sector. North Stradbroke Island already has a competitive advantage in these sectors. They were chosen as they currently exist on the island and have potential for growth, would continue to evolve without government intervention and capitalise on the iconic characteristics of North Stradbroke Island. Tourism, for example, is a major employer on the island, with 20 per cent of the workforce employed in accommodation and food services. Approximately 800,000 people visit the Cleveland-Stradbroke region each year, with a 5.5 per cent increase in day visitors recorded in 2014. There are many opportunities to expand and diversify current tourism offerings, particularly in nature, adventure and cultural tourism where the island can provide a unique experience close to a capital city. Tourism jobs on the island are seasonal. The draft strategy proposes a number of actions which are designed to increase visitors during the off-season to generate year-round economic benefits. The education and training sector is a relatively small sector on the island currently employing around six per cent of the residents. Education and training, particularly in relation to educational tourism, is growing overall in the region, and around 5.7 per cent of international visitors engage in educational experiences. There is an opportunity to develop learning products based on the island’s Brisbane - 2 - 08 Apr 2016

Public Hearing—Inquiry into the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2015 and the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability (Renewal of Mining Leases) Amendment Bill 2015 unique history, geology, environment and culture which can then attract a diverse range of visitors from school camps to corporate retreats and international tours. It is also important to note that there is existing infrastructure on the island—namely, the Dunwich secondary school campus—that is available for use. We know that local businesses create around 80 per cent of jobs on the island and that most of these small businesses employ a handful of people. Many opportunities are emerging that should create additional economic activity and encourage new businesses to start or existing businesses to expand. While construction on the island will provide jobs for tradespeople and other businesses, there are opportunities to develop Dunwich as a day destination for visitors and expand facilities such as the aged-care facility on the island. Indigenous residents have also expressed an interest in developing businesses in areas such as seafood harvesting, fish processing and marketing, forestry and timber, and traditional medicine. Focusing on these industries will assist with the economic transition by accelerating growth over the longer term. In terms of the development of the draft strategy, following on from the review of the previous work and initial interagency and key stakeholder consultation, the Department of State Development collated 180 potential actions. To determine which of these initiatives would be included in the draft strategy, State Development undertook a multicriteria analysis. This process enabled the department to prioritise initiatives according to their benefit to the industry and the community, economic development, employment creation and community support. Under benefit to the industry and the community, we asked: does the proposed action have the potential to provide a benefit to multiple businesses in an industry or improve social disadvantage on the island? Under economic development, we asked: does the action have the potential to build on an existing or emerging industry by encouraging private investment? Under employment creation, we asked: does the action have the potential to create long-term sustainable employment opportunities for North Stradbroke Island residents? Under community support, we asked: is there support for this action amongst multiple stakeholders? Following this analysis, the 180 potential initiatives were reduced to 16 actions, supported by a suite of 26 initiatives which were designed to drive the three targeted industry sectors on the island. The initiatives are to be implemented over the short, medium and long term. For the purposes of the committee and the draft strategy, short-term initiatives are those that can occur within the next year, medium-term initiatives begin within the next two years and longer term initiatives are beyond that. For sustainable tourism, there are seven actions and 16 initiatives in the draft strategy. The actions include developing more nature and adventure based attractions such as improved pedestrian and cycling trails, and developing a strategy for expanding national parks. Action 2 is improving infrastructure and facilities such as camping facilities in conjunction with Straddie Camping; undertaking a planning study to identify potential sites for ecotourism and resort accommodation; and, importantly, conducting a tourism investor summit to attract private investment. Action 3 is creating marketing campaigns and a program of events to increase awareness and visitor numbers, particularly during the low season. Action 4 is creating more cultural tourism opportunities by progressing the Minjerribah Cultural Centre; promoting the Quandamooka Festival; constructing an observation platform near Point Lookout for whale-watching and other marine activities; constructing a whale interpretation facility; and granting an exclusive whale-watching permit to the Quandamooka people to increase Indigenous business opportunities. Other tourism activities include enhancing the visitor experience by providing locational and interpretive signage at key locations on the island and implementing a six-year visitor research program on the island to better understand the market and its needs. Other actions are unlocking Peel Island by constructing a jetty and conducting a feasibility study to establish the viability of a Brisbane CBD to Stradbroke Island ferry. For education and training, there are five actions and six initiatives. The actions include developing new education and training products through a centre for island learning and expanding the Indigenous Land and Sea Ranger program; creating a service to administer and coordinate learning activities such as an education exchange; improving education and training facilities by refurbing the Dunwich secondary campus; expanding the market for school camps, field studies and tertiary research by researching new opportunities and potential barriers; and improving public transport options by investigating the island’s public transport options including integration to TransLink. Brisbane - 3 - 08 Apr 2016

For local businesses, there are four actions and four initiatives. These include creating a master plan for Dunwich to develop a day visitor precinct; investigating the expansion of the existing aged-care facilities to double the existing capacity and create opportunities for employment; delivering training and support programs to build local business capacity by implementing an operator training and capacity-building program; and establishing an Indigenous Business Development Fund to investigate new business opportunities for the island. I would remind the committee that all the actions and initiatives contained in the draft strategy are still subject to final approval by the government. In terms of consultation, public consultation on the draft economic transition strategy was conducted between 3 December 2015 and 5 February 2016. State Development engaged an independent contractor to conduct on-island consultation and to produce a report outlining these results. Over the consultation period, we received 191 completed online surveys, 110 stakeholder comments and 30 written submissions. The results of the consultation are now being considered in the drafting of the final strategy. In terms of funding, in addition to the $20 million allocated to the economic transition strategy, further support is available through a $3.87 million in-kind Queensland government contribution and $5 million to help the mineworkers pursue new employment opportunities. The $3.87 million includes $1.19 million to coordinate and implement the strategy. This means that the $20 million commitment remains entirely for funding of actions and initiatives proposed under the strategy. The $5 million North Stradbroke Island Sand Mining Workers Assistance Scheme will be administered by Queensland Treasury, who are with us today, to assist affected workers transition to alternative employment. The strategy also identifies $40 million in potential private sector co-investment opportunities. The implementation of the strategy will be coordinated by the Department of State Development. It is proposed in the draft strategy that activities will be overseen by a governance committee comprising key stakeholders and relevant government agencies. This proposed committee will report to the North Stradbroke Island ministerial forum. In terms of the next steps, the economic transition strategy will be finalised and approved by government before it is released. It is currently scheduled to coincide with the passage of the government’s legislation in respect of the cessation of sandmining. CHAIR: Thank you, Matthew. I have to let everyone know that there will be no live broadcast today. There will be a transcript available, but unfortunately there has been a technical hitch which the chair has no power to fix. Catherine, would you like to make an opening statement? Ms McFadyen: Yes, I would like to make a short statement about the workers assistance scheme. The North Stradbroke Island Sand Mining Workers Assistance Scheme has been developed to support workers currently employed in the sandmining and processing operations of Sibelco Australia. The purpose of the scheme is to assist affected workers to find alternative employment, preferably in the local area including the Redland City Council district, to support the ongoing economic viability of the North Stradbroke Island community. The scheme may provide a range of measures to assist affected workers to transition to alternative employment. This includes appointing an employment services manager, or ESM, to project manage implementation and delivery of services under the scheme and also funding for the ESM to employ caseworkers to work on a one-to-one basis with affected workers assessing individual skills and needs including recognising prior learning. Specific measures that may be included in the final scheme design include employment support, training services, a commuting subsidy for individuals, income supplementation and dislocation assistance. A draft scheme design has been undertaken and has been available for public review on the Queensland Treasury website since last December and initial consultation has occurred with union representatives. Final scheme design will take into consideration any feedback received during this committee’s inquiry and workers will also be consulted on the final scheme design. It is important to note at this point that the scheme is intended to fill the gaps in services provided by both Sibelco and the federal government. It is intended to supplement, not duplicate, those services. The final design, therefore, is dependent on consultation with Sibelco about its plans to manage the workforce including transition plans and what labour it requires for rehabilitation after closure. Details of Sibelco’s plans need to be assessed prior to finalisation of the scheme as the scope and focus of the scheme may need to change to ensure it appropriately meets the needs of affected workers. Brisbane - 4 - 08 Apr 2016

We understand that Sibelco is still evaluating how it plans to manage its workforce into the future including transition plans for its workforce and what labour it requires for its rehabilitation after the closure. It is proposed that consultation with Sibelco be undertaken following the passage of the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability and Other Acts Amendment Bill. CHAIR: Thanks, Catherine. I propose that the committee will leave questions for the department and Treasury until the end. I think that will be a more efficient way of dealing with it.

Brisbane - 5 - 08 Apr 2016

BATTERSBY, Mr Colin, President, Straddie Chamber of Commerce

SMITH, Mr Paul, Principal Consultant, Pandanus Solutions CHAIR: I welcome Mr Colin Battersby and Mr Paul Smith. Thank you for your attendance today. The committee appreciates your assistance. You have previously received a copy of instructions for witnesses so we will take them as read. You will be provided with a proof of the transcript once it is available and it will also be placed on the committee’s website when available. I invite you to make a brief opening statement if you wish and then the committee will ask questions. Mr Battersby: First of all, I acknowledge the traditional owners—our friends and colleagues— of this area and their elders, past, present and future. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I think this is the third or fourth time that we have had the opportunity to meet publicly with the FAC. It has been five or six years now that we have been involved in the debate, and we are thankful for that. I think it is fair to say that our members have been transitioning for five or six years that the uncertainty has been going on. What we have not had from government is anything more than a bit of talk so far. We are quite anxious to get some certainty for our members, the owners of property on Straddie, and the people who live and work there. As we have repeatedly put on the public record, our members and executive are acutely aware that mining has a shelf life on Straddie. That seems obvious to everybody. All mines end at some time. Additionally, we wish to repeat that our members are supportive of the ethical considerations of the native title designation. The chamber’s primary concern is that the transition from sandmining is supported with a carefully planned and robust strategy and a realistic funding allocation that is quarantined from the political process. We are very pleased that we are now having this meeting today and that the ETS has been brought into the discussion, as it was not part of the original discussion. We note that despite several requests for economic modelling from the government which we presume has been done— we hope and expect that it has been done—there is no quantitative data provided in the public domain, as Matthew pointed out. In the absence of that, the chamber of commerce surveyed our members extensively most recently in January and again in February 2016. We made a submission to you yesterday which included the raw data from those two surveys. I would like to address a couple of issues that have come up from our colleagues in this process which refer to that raw data. I must say again that it is the only data out there at the moment which we are disappointed about. With our megaresources, we surveyed our 85 members. Matthew mentioned the 2011 census data and perhaps its limitations. It is, of course, five or six years old. We have mentioned that some sort of transitioning is already happening on Straddie, both with the mining company and with businesses rebirthing themselves. Relying on census data taken in 2011 and in August, which is the lowest of low seasons for Straddie, probably does not give us an accurate picture of what is going on on the island. Similarly, if you were to do a survey, for example, of a ski resort in August, it would certainly give you a skewed idea of the working capacity and where people are working. It has its limitations, as I guess our own survey does. However, I would like to draw your attention to the results of the 18 questions in the survey of our members in February which was directly done to ascertain the number of employees that our members employ, again in January, what their hourly rates of pay are and so on. Our methodology, while simple, is stated here right now. We assumed that the hourly rate of pay under the modern award for a hospitality worker is about $21 an hour for ordinary hours Monday to Friday. The average hospitality worker on Straddie— which is in the census—works approximately 20 hours a week. A prominent business on Straddie reports having 45 employees and a total payroll of about $900,000. There is $20,000 right there. That is pretty much accurate across the whole of the hospitality industry. I would point out that the tax-free threshold which most of our hospitality workers find very important is currently $18,200 a year. They would then be paying around 18 cents in the dollar on the other $1,800 to make up to 20 grand a year as an average. For all intents and purposes, the gross wage equals the net wage. We also assumed that mining company workers earn on average about $55 an hour, which is more than double what a hospitality worker gets. The mathematics from there was a ballpark of 100 mining employees losing their jobs. To replace one mining employee’s job with a full-time equivalent hospitality worker, it will be more than double the amount of hours that they would need to receive. We say that 100 mining jobs equates to approximately 200 hospitality jobs which need to be created. Brisbane - 6 - 08 Apr 2016

Further to that, our members reported employing 158 full-time employees and 487 part-time positions. We then asked them what percentage of their business they thought was directly or indirectly attributed to the mining company. From there we asked them if that was taken out of their business what would be the effect on the number of people they employed. Our members came back to us saying a potential loss of 22 full-time and 66 part-time positions. Let us call it 100 plus 200 from the mining company. We think 300 jobs need to be created on Straddie to alleviate the loss of the mining income. I have some additional comments on the draft economic transition strategy. As I said before, we all understand that mining will finish some time. Again, our members are very supportive of the native title legislation and the aspirations of the Quandamooka people. They are business owners. They are members of the chamber of commerce, and we are all in this together as far as we are concerned. In the last five years there has been no infrastructure created at all. There has been a lot of talk, but there has been no budget allocated to any transition package at all. The only transition that has been happening is by the mining company and by local businesses themselves. The tourism market on Straddie has been pretty much the same for the last 50 years. The only real growth that has occurred has been due to activities that our members have put together themselves. We are self-sufficient. We do have an economy on Straddie, contrary to some other people’s advice. I think it is pretty obvious when we are talking about the number of jobs that there is something going on over there. We are at risk at the moment of dismantling the economy over there and it will be required to be rebuilt. It is not a transition; ultimately, in the worst case scenario it is a total rebuild. We are looking for the ETS to look like this: it needs to be a visionary and pragmatic document. It needs to be well costed and similarly well funded over a number of years. We are suggesting that that funding needs to be annexed from the political cycle. It needs to be locked in and put in stone, and it needs to start immediately. Long-lasting, legacy style infrastructure is what Straddie needs. Businesses will adapt and create products around government-built infrastructure. Specifically, they are talking about mountain biking and walking trails linking the three towns—linking first of all the Point Lookout surf club through to Adder Rock as a walking trail—as an iconic walk that includes the North Gorge Walk and then from Adder Rock to Amity Point and then from Amity down the western side of the island to Dunwich. Long-lasting legacy infrastructure—85 per cent of our members suggested that that was the most important thing that could happen. In no particular order, there is the prioritisation of the regeneration of the Dunwich Harbour as a welcoming and functional tourist arrival and departure point. If it is done right, it could also be a daytrip destination in itself—something that Dunwich really struggles with at the moment. There are very limited opportunities to do things when you come over to Dunwich. Obviously, that is a key area that needs to be looked after. That is where the bulk of the people on Straddie live. Some of them work in the mines. Some of them travel every day up to Point Lookout to work up to 20 hours a week. Clearly, they are underemployed. So an area like Dunwich is obviously a great opportunity. There is also constructing a world-class land based whale watching facility at Point Lookout. It already is Australia’s best location for whale watching. By and large, it is there. It requires some sort of permanent infrastructure with some educational signage, some of which I notice in the last few weeks has started to appear around the gorge. That is a relatively simple and quite obvious investment opportunity. There is investing in educational facilities, both aquatic and on land, in Dunwich and Point Lookout. That is pretty much a no-brainer and an obvious way to go. Matthew Andrew mentioned the school at Dunwich that is unused at the moment for its primary purpose. That is a great opportunity. Again, we are saying implement a well-funded five-year market research program hand in hand with a real destination marketing budget. Let people know what is on Straddie. That is very important. Hand in hand with that, we feel that there is an opportunity to create product and funding explicitly just for Stradbroke island. We know that there is a whale watching ticket available for boats and so on. There has been talk about that and I believe we might hear a bit more about it later on today. That is an obvious thing. That could really help out the island. It is a strength in our winter offering at present. The last thing that our members are concerned about is maintaining an affordable, reliable, efficient and timely transport system to and from the island. We are supportive of some sort of ferry service from the city—absolutely—but also on the island. Taxis and transport is an issue, particularly after dark at night-time. Brisbane - 7 - 08 Apr 2016

The last thing that I would like to talk to you briefly about is the workers’ transition plan. We have heard about the $5 million that has been set aside to transition workers from mining. The chamber is a bit disappointed that absolutely nothing has been provided in that $5 million so far that addresses employment issues for the rest of the community. It looks like a fair slice of that $5 million will be wrapped up in the administration of it, which is disappointing. It sounds like it might be a bit difficult to access for mining employees. Certainly, one of the things that it is going to cover will be relocation costs for families of mining workers, which is probably the last thing that the chamber of commerce members would like to see—the relocation, I mean. Most importantly, there seems to be no allocated funding in the current budget that we can see. I am happy to be proved wrong on that, but it just points out again that, while the local businesses and the mining company itself have been transitioning for six years, the government has not been. We are very disappointed about that. In conclusion, we would like to thank you for the opportunity here again today. As it stands, the chamber of commerce and its members cannot support either of the proposed bills in their current format. The main reason for that is that the ETS is not built into it. Our main problem with this whole issue, as I said, is that we know that mining is going to finish. We are supportive of the politicians sorting out when it is going to finish—mine paths and all of this sort of stuff. The business community is saying that we are really anxious for the transition to start immediately, be well funded and to be locked in stone as part of whatever bill you guys come up with at the end of day. I would say a number of things. Where did the $20 million come from? Whose idea was it? Was it costed—what needed to be done? We think not. We saw a draft document from State Development that outlined, I think it was, $57 million for potential projects that could have been done. Now, that has been squeezed into $20 million. I could point out that in that initial document there was a $400,000 budget for the walking and mountain bike trail that I mentioned from Point Lookout to Dunwich. It was then subsequently changed to the $12 million—from $400,000. Clearly, $20 million is not enough. Perhaps the committee would look at the mining company coming up with a generous offer of $20 million to match the government figure. Maybe that is getting closer what we need. In any case, the chamber of commerce members are saying that the ETS needs to be part of whatever legislation ends up going to parliament and passed. That is most important for us. Thank you. CHAIR: Paul, do you want to make a statement? Mr Smith: No, Col covered it all. I was backup. CHAIR: Okay. One of the obvious statements that has been made about Straddie is its unique position in that, to a certain extent, it has been preserved. Obviously, you do not look at the sandmining but other aspects of the island are unique—the fauna and the nature that is on the island as well as surrounding the island with the whales. Is it too close to the mainland, for example, for a research centre from one of the universities to be developed on the island? Mr Smith: Actually, a couple of universities over the last few years have looked at it. I do not know whether you know about the American centre called Woods Hollow. It is a famous marine research centre in America and it is very similar. It is close to a major city and it has a fantastic big bay like Moreton Bay. Certainly, the University of Queensland has looked at it and I know that other universities have looked at it. There is nothing precluding almost anything on Straddie. There is plenty of space and plenty of opportunity. It is 28,500 hectares. The mining leases are getting smaller and they can be made smaller overnight. I think all up in 50 or 60 years of mining it is about 20 per cent of disturbance. So there is still plenty of land. The townships take up only two per cent, I think, if we are lucky. Land use planning, which I think we put in our original decision, was one of the things that we think is the key to at least getting our membership and anybody else who wants to invest in Straddie a clue about where they can invest, because at the moment successive governments have just gone, ‘It’s too hard.’ I admit that land use planning was held up with native title, but that is resolved. So now we can move on. Mr CRANDON: Thanks, Col, for that. I went through your material that you sent last night. One of the things that you have not touched on, and it has been raised before—and I think it may even have been you as one of the people who mentioned this—is the capacity to borrow. We are talking about investing in business. We are talking about people investing—businesses coming to the island. Businesses borrow. They do not use their capital. They do not use the money in the bank; they borrow. Can you expand on your experiences to date? Given what you outlined in relation to the loss Brisbane - 8 - 08 Apr 2016

Public Hearing—Inquiry into the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2015 and the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability (Renewal of Mining Leases) Amendment Bill 2015 of jobs from your industry, which is going to bring it down to a lower level before it can be built back up—there is going to be a bit of a vacuum in terms of economic benefit—can you expand on that experience that businesses have had on the island regarding borrowings? Mr Battersby: I can certainly speak for my own businesses. For those who do not know, I have a real estate agency, which primarily operates in the holiday rental sphere. We also do sales and so on. At the other end of the tourism offering we sell fish and chips. We have a little restaurant that is open for 363 days of the year. From my own personal experience, in the last three or four months I have been talking to my various bankers trying to borrow some money to purchase what I see as good-value holiday rental properties that I can add to my own portfolio and then rent out as part of my primary business. My banks are offering me money—and quite a lot of it relatively—over on the mainland. So ‘Buy anything you want to Cleveland, Col, but we’re not very keen to lend you money on Stradbroke island.’ Once I push them on that, the two banks that I have been talking to cite the uncertainty with what is going on with land use planning and the overall level of happiness about ongoing business viability. When I talked about businesses being in transition already, to be fair, there are six or seven high-profile businesses for sale right now on Straddie. Really, business operators are saying that their transition is to get a plan to get out. I think that is a problem. Our businesses need oxygen. We need it quickly. You cannot build walking trails quickly. You can destination market quickly and at least maintain the value in the current businesses that are there. Matthew talks about a plan for the current businesses and a plan for new businesses. There are no new businesses really wanting to get going on Straddie that I am aware. There are a bunch of old businesses looking to get out as a transition plan. Mr Smith: I can probably add a few little anecdotes to that. I think you have heard as part of this committee process that land valuations for the island have stayed the same. So that is a nice indication. Everyone else is slowly creeping up. It was not even a tiny percentage change. Certainly, for myself, I have had trouble securing funding to the point that I have just said, ‘No, nothing on Straddie.’ I have to chase work somewhere else. I am working for an organisation at the moment that has a good plan. They have an expansion plan. They have succeeded in gaining a couple of grants over the last few years to build their capacity to the point where they are ready for the next step and they are not having much luck at all in getting anybody to listen to their plans. Mr CRANDON: As far as borrowings are concerned? Mr Smith: Or attracting an investor. They want a business partner to help them. Mr CRANDON: Right. Thanks. Mr PEGG: In your opening statement you mentioned quite a few times—and you might have partially answered this—about businesses already transitioning. Can you give me some specific examples of that? Mr Battersby: My specific example was that people are putting their businesses up for sale. Mr PEGG: So that is what you meant? Mr Battersby: That is part of it and most of it is what the businesses’ reaction has been. Certainly without the ability to invest further with borrowing money to build your business up, it is steady as she goes. I think treading water is the comment I have used in the previous meetings. Mr Smith: We have seen some people cut their hours too. They say, ‘This is a slow period. I’m going to shut down.’ There are a lot of owner-operators who can, but what do you do when they are staff? Their staff have to do something. We are heading into May. I think three or maybe four prominent businesses will actually shut their doors for all of May. Mr PERRETT: Thank you for coming in and making representations. I want to refer to land use planning, and I know that is a key component into the future. In terms of the expansion of the tourism industry, do you believe that that will ultimately be successful if the land use planning is not addressed at the same time? With regard to the potential to increase visitation to the island, from your experience what capacity does the island have to do that? Does that then create additional concerns, particularly the environmental people in that they may advocate for a cap of visitation to the island in the future which may undermine all of the efforts? There are examples in other jurisdictions where visitation to areas are capped based on the environmental factors. I raise that with you as businesspeople and seek your comment—that is, there could be another angle that may sneak up and bite you if it is not addressed appropriately at this stage. Brisbane - 9 - 08 Apr 2016

Mr Battersby: I think there is no doubt that the unique selling position of Straddie is the environment—on the land and in the sea—and I think everyone on Straddie acknowledges that. After all, that is why we want to live there rather than the concrete jungle in the city. I think it is a great opportunity for us all to live in a great place and then share it responsibly and sustainably with the rest of Queensland and the rest of the world by providing quality services to them. Obviously in the peak times—six or seven weeks of the year—capacity is capacity. That is limited by the number of boats that can come over every hour, so there is already some sort of cap in place. The rest of the year the seasonality issues with tourism are well known. I think definitely there is capacity for more day trippers coming over to walk the gorge and walk the new trails that I talked about earlier. We would be supportive of a cap, but I would say there is already one in place. The boats are a filter. Mr Smith: Talking about land use planning, if you look at available land, at present freehold land is freehold land and there are no spare blocks—or not many, probably a handful. If a business wanted to create something like an integrated resort or whatever, there is nowhere to put it unless they are going to buy something and knock it down or renovate it or do something like that, and then there are the building costs of course on an island. I watched three concrete trucks get on a barge to try to get to Moreton yesterday. That was quite entertaining, so I cannot imagine what that cost. It would be similar for getting concrete to Straddie. From a land use planning perspective, it has always been there. It is the bogeyman in the room. It needs to be done. Somebody needs to step in and do it. I know drafts have gone to various government departments through different regimes—red, blue or whatever—and we have not seen it. There has been no change to the town plan since the 1970s or something or other. It is just the same one recycled each year, so council cannot do anything either until lines are drawn. Mr BROWN: Paul, I have a question more towards your previous role. There seemed to be a bit of a contradiction in Colin’s statement about the number of job losses. You said 100 job losses at the beginning and then 200. Which is it? Mr Smith: That was the multiplier with part-time jobs. That was the 200 reference. With the employees I have not worked with them since December and there was a restructure on when I left, so I do not know for sure. I think they have put in a submission with their actual numbers. Mr BROWN: Sorry. If you can excuse me, I am new to this one today. Mr Smith: No, that is all right, and I am not talking for Sibelco. Their numbers are their numbers, but as far as resident employees I think it ranges. The numbers that you see in the various publications ranges from 90 through to about 50 for resident employees, but that does not include— and you are right—the people travelling on the boat who live in Cleveland, Capalaba, Redland Bay and all of those sorts of areas as well. There are those people as well. Mr BROWN: So it is about 50 on the island and 50 off the island; is that correct? Mr Smith: No. In the report it is still 150 plus as far as all up for the Stradbroke operation and then there is Pinkenba as well. Mr BROWN: Again you have been away from Sibelco, but why cannot Sibelco just tell this committee how many? Mr Smith: I think they have in the submission. It is in the submission, and I think they did in the hearings in Dunwich. Mr Battersby: I think the point is that it is not in the dozens; it is in the hundreds. That is the main point. It is not under 100; it is not 48. The total number of full-time equivalent jobs that we estimate is around 300, and I did point out it was a pretty rudimentary survey that was difficult to skew, and I have supplied the survey as it was done for you guys to have a look at. The point is it is in the hundreds, not the dozens. Mr BROWN: Following on from that, are your minutes from your AGMs public documents? Mr Smith: The AGMs go to our members. Mr Battersby: The minutes for the monthly meetings go to the members. Mr Smith: Everything goes to members. Mr BROWN: There would have been mention that when the previous two mines shut down 40 employees lost their jobs. In terms of the hardship that was caused over that period of time, that would have been raised at those meetings? Can you supply those minutes? Mr Smith: I do not know where you get the number of 40 people. Are you implying the Yarraman shutdown? Brisbane - 10 - 08 Apr 2016

Mr BROWN: Yes. Mr Smith: Okay. We had a meeting—our AGM—where it was raised and most of those were retirees, so they were not re-entering the working market. Mr BROWN: That had an economic effect on the island in terms of those 40 job losses that were mentioned in the meeting? Mr Battersby: I think it was acknowledged that there was a mining shutdown and that this was the start of the process. Mr BROWN: You can supply the committee with those minutes? Mr Smith: Yes. I think if anything it shows that we had a spike in membership, so people were saying, ‘Hang on. This is serious, mum. The mine is going. We need to have a say,’ and that is where we got the responses from our surveys as well. Mr Battersby: In 2010 there was not a Straddie Chamber of Commerce. The Straddie Chamber of Commerce was born in the months and weeks after the previous Labor government announced that mining was going to finish. We started as a result of a single issue. We have now broadened— CHAIR: Sorry, Colin, but I just have to pull you up. We have a question from the deputy chair, and this will be the last question. Mr CRANDON: Thanks, Chair. It was just a follow-on question. A number of people—in fact, I think just about everybody—have talked about the walking tracks—the riding tracks, walking tracks, whatever it might be. People have also talked about the environmental issues. Are there any environmental issues around cutting a swathe of walking tracks through all of the land that we are talking about that is supposed to be so pristine and cared for and don’t touch it and what have you? Are the environmentalists going to come after whoever it is that proposes those walking tracks? Mr Smith: Probably, if you do it wrong. The best thing I guess— Mr CRANDON: I am thinking about the time line. How long does it take you to get through the process— Mr Smith: It takes a while, yes. Mr CRANDON:—of getting all of the approvals for something that is eight kilometres long or 18 kilometres long or however long it is? Mr Smith: Council has had a couple of goes at linking them all and I think they have a current project to try to link them all. There is a lot of tired infrastructure, a lot of natural trails and a lot of firebreaks and things like that, so the time taken to do the EISs and stitch all those together would be substantial. Mr CRANDON: It is not going to happen tomorrow. Mr Smith: No. CHAIR: I thank you for your attendance again. The committee appreciates your assistance. You will be provided with a proof of the transcript, which will also be placed on the committee’s website once it becomes available.

Brisbane - 11 - 08 Apr 2016

KARKLIS, Mr Jason, Employee, Sibelco

SAVINS, Mr Ben, Employee, Sibelco

TURUWHENUA, Mr Benjamin, Employee, Sibelco

WATTS, Mr Jonathan, Employee, Sibelco CHAIR: Thank you for your attendance today. You understand that you have to make sure that anything you say to the committee is the truth. I understand that you do have opening statements which, even though we are running a little bit behind, we would like to hear from you because you guys, pardon the pun, are at the coalface. Mr Savins: Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to discuss our lives and futures with the committee. I have forwarded my submission on how I believe the draft economic transition strategy and the workers’ assistance scheme will affect my family, myself and my work colleagues. The opportunity to express my thoughts on the ETS and the workers’ assistance scheme is appreciated as these items are intrinsically linked. I am here with my work colleagues to help illustrate how the proposed legislation changes will affect us personally. We have persons here who are involved in different aspects of the mining operations. This includes the day services crew, which is Jason and Benji both at Enterprise Mine, and Jonathan, who is a systems analyst. I myself am a senior environmental and health and safety coordinator at Enterprise Mine. The workers’ assistance scheme, the WAS, whilst appearing to have some good intentions on paper, really requires to detail further information on how it will actually be implemented and assist people who are employed by the mining operations. I and my work colleagues are struggling to define how we are really going to be assisted. To clarify my position further, I am a full-time resident living on the island with my wife and kids in our house, which is under mortgage. Our family plan is to remain on the island, though we have some grave concerns how this will actually work. One of my main concerns regarding the WAS and the ETS is that both seem to be missing the fact that there are several people who do not fit into the classification of ‘worker’. Take myself for example. I am a degree qualified, salary paid non-union member who is not working under the Sibelco Australia North Stradbroke Island sands enterprise agreement. I ask: where does this leave people like myself and the others who do not fit into this definition? In one of the graphs in the ETS—that is, the economic transition strategy—it is quite clear that the focus needs to be widened past the high school level of education. It also needs to include how people who have trades, degrees and other qualifications will be assisted as they will all be greatly affected by the loss of employment. As such, there are a few points and questions I have noted. The workers’ assistance scheme is lacking in detail. The management of the $5 million is covered rather basically in two pages—that is, we require clarification on eligibility for each category. Those things are mortgage assistance and wage and salary supplementation. Another question I have relates to section 9 of the WAS, income supplementation. If I could only find employment in a low-paying job would I still be eligible to receive a relatively large payout from the assistance scheme to cover the difference what I am on now and a lower paying job? Another question is: will I still be eligible for assistance if I leave prior to or after the legislated closure date? An example is that I leave mining employment in 2018 or 2021 whilst the legislated closure date is 2019. People will be working either side of the legislated closure date and will still likely need assistance before or after this time. Will the pool of money run out as the scheme is noted to commence when the legislation is passed? If the mine closure is kept at the current legislated cessation date of 2035 or changed to 2024 or 2027 the need for such schemes will be negated or greatly reduced proportionate to the level of time allowed. That is through things like Sibelco’s offer of assistance of $21 million et cetera. Will any given amount of mining related redundancy remove my eligibility to gain assistance from the WAS or the ETS or the government? I may receive a small redundancy from Sibelco, would this void my ability to gain any assistance? The $5 million detailed in the ETS and workers assistance scheme will not spread far enough to effectively help. My example is that we have approximately 170 people for this to be distributed among which equals about $29,000 each—and that is if we are eligible. Full-time employment is a better outcome rather than the potential to receive any payout. The real transitional value appears to be much higher than the offerings in these documents. The amount, as we have heard from other people today and beforehand, should be closer to $56 million or $58 million. Brisbane - 12 - 08 Apr 2016

As we have just heard, banks are much more wary of loaning money for property on the island. Much larger deposits are required to buy a house on the island. This confirms that there is a lack of confidence in the current economic stability of the island. I encountered this myself when I bought my property on the island. To sum up the above, I believe one of the main points requiring clarification is the eligibility to receive assistance and where it will ultimately result in an effective outcome. Both documents focus on training and education. This is a great initiative for people who need training, though it will not apply to a number of people like myself. As aforementioned, I am a degree qualified person and I have a trade qualification as a light vehicle mechanic. For me, the important thing is monetary assistance and namely full-time employment to transition away from mining. This brings me back to my point that 2019 is too short a time frame to do so. Like I mentioned in my previous submission, I am aware of commitments to end sandmining by 2019, though I can only foresee this short time frame to be a hindrance rather than a smart way forward for the island and mining employees as a whole, remembering that full-time employment by the mine is the only reason my family and I can stay on the island and pay off the mortgage on the property we live in. This is the same scenario for several people. I have noticed that the ETS details Fraser Island as a success story. The comparison between the two islands is not equal in terms of social and economic factors. Anyone who knows enough information would understand the populations, in terms of both population quantity and social demographics, are different. That being that more people reside on NSI and also several of the mining employees living on NSI are not suited to the tourism industry due to their qualifications, personality type or career ambitions. If the target is to achieve a reduction of residents on NSI, the Fraser Island approach would be suitable, though it is not a suitable direction for NSI. This is due to the number of existing residents, and the housing and infrastructure required to maintain this population. If the Fraser Island approach were engaged we would soon encounter a society likened to mining ghost towns. This brings me back to my point regarding infrastructure and the apparent direction to increase tourism. This will be a struggle for the current island infrastructure. Full-time residents encounter issues when tourist numbers increase in peak holiday periods—that is, Easter and Christmas. Restaurants and food supplies do not cope with the influx of people. Giving more time to achieve suitable outcomes will only serve to benefit all involved. I note that infrastructure and private investment is confirmed as a challenge in the ETS document, as per the excerpt I provided in my written submission. Indeed this backs my personal belief that the island is not ready for the transition now nor will it be in three years. It also strengthens my case that more time is needed to encourage private investment and the associated infrastructure. They are my points. Mr Turuwhenua: I am a resident of the island. I also have a mortgage on a home on the island. I have worked for Sibelco for five years. I wanted to talk about—Ben has half covered what I was going to talk about today—the workers assistance scheme. One thing that is very daunting for me as a family man is losing my job and then getting a scheme. When you read the scheme it starts off really well. It says that it will give me extra training. You read through sections 1 to 7 and you find that they will help with commuting subsidies. Housing assistance is there. They are going to help you with income supplementation. Then you get to the last clause which says that if you get a redundancy it voids everything. It states that it will only be made available where affected workers are not eligible for any redundancy payments. I do not know many workers who are not getting a redundancy. When I read this scheme I read what we cannot get. It is like a crumpet; there are plenty of holes in it. I do not have any faith in it. Five million dollars sounds to me to be insufficient. It is great that there is something there for us, but it does not ease my concerns when it comes to the certainty of my livelihood. I do not think I will be able to pay a lot of things off. Everybody has things to pay off. We have to look at the whole transition phase. We need to look at the car park situation at the ferry terminals when tourism kicks in. We are struggling to hold the car parks at the moment. I pick my kids up every day at the ferry. It is a big shemozzle. That is not when any tourists are here. A lot needs to be done for this transition to happen in such a short time. That is pretty much all I have to say today. Mr Karklis: I am a resident of Straddie. My family has always lived on the island—my ancestors and the like. My partner’s family situation is along the same lines. They have always lived here. We love the island. Brisbane - 13 - 08 Apr 2016

I will speak about how I see the transition through the three main criteria—drive sustainable tourism, expand education and training opportunities and foster business development and growth. In terms of driving sustainable tourism, how can you sustain tourism if it is clearly a seasonal occurrence? Over this Easter break we had perfect weather. The island has been overrun. The beaches have been damaged. They have been completely ripped apart. I went down the beach with my kids a week before Easter and the beaches were perfect and wide and there were eugaries, local shellfish, everywhere. There were a couple of tourists on that day who drove up one of the sand dunes and got bogged. They came over and asked us for help. We towed them out. They turned around and got down to the bottom of the sand dune. By the time we had turned around and looked they had driven into another hole and ended up on their side. When we went down on the weekend there was no beach. This is just from four-wheel drives going backwards and forwards as though they are roads. Working in the mines we drive on sand every single day. I turn around and looked at my kids and said that it is too dangerous. People had parked side on near gutters so they can fish. It has been so damaged. I heard a story of one car getting bogged and another one getting bogged and trying to tow each other out. One bloke put his hand in the wrong spot and lost four fingers. It is dangerous. I do not know how they will go with that. What will happen when there is poor weather, extra travel costs and limited access to the island? They can rely on the tourism, but who is going to support the businesses when the weather is bad or it is cold. No-one goes to the beach when it is cold and windy. There are problems there. From a local standpoint, when it says expand education and training opportunities, who is that for? What about the locals? I can see it happening for uni students. If you shut down mining we will lose the youth—me, my three kids, my partner. The result will be a loss of kids at our state school. For each kid that leaves the school funding will go down, access to computers and teacher relief will reduce. There will be a domino effect. We have already lost our high school. We are teetering in terms of the number of students to teachers now. I do not know how this $20 million will boost the number of children going to school, the infrastructure and equipment and the teacher to student ratios. I do not see how this is a positive for our kids’ education. The next criteria is to foster business development and growth. How will local businesses prosper with the loss of local shoppers and people turning to the mainland for work? This will also result in people shopping on the mainland. How will they go with their only real income coming four times a year—if the weather is good? I cannot see how any of the locals are going to turn around in two years times and say that we are going to be right. Everybody is talking about tourism. The community is split on the subject. Some are saying that they want tourism but when the tourists come they say they want them gone. It is Friday today and everyone is saying, ‘When do the school holidays finish so we can go to the shop and get some bread?’ There is no bread. It is atrocious. It is common sense that it is all right when the money is coming but when you cannot get what you want it is different. If I have a family member who is sick or injured or anything like that, how am I supposed to get off the island? I cannot see or visit them because the barges are booked out. If mining shuts down there will be a limited number of boats going to and from the island because there will be fewer people on the island. These are the types of things that we have to take into account; they affect everyone. Mr Watts: Thank you for the opportunity this morning to talk about the transition strategy. I am a resident of Stradbroke Island. I have been a resident for 21 years. I have raised a family there. I reside there with my wife and my two children—my daughter is 21 and my son is 17. I started on the island 21 years ago as a maintenance fitter. I am a fitter and turner by trade. I have been a long-time member of Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union. I have recently resigned from that union. The reason for that resignation is the lack of support for us as workers over on Stradbroke Island. It is my belief that both the AMWU and the ETU have a position on Stradbroke Island and its future. In my opinion it does not support the workers there. I note that the Australian Workers’ Union is going into bat for their members. If I were to join another union, I would join that union. But I am not here to talk about that. I want to talk about the transition strategy. My concern with the current proposal of the transition to phase out mining by 2019 is that it does not allow enough funding or time to generate effective business opportunities that will sustain in the way that mining Brisbane - 14 - 08 Apr 2016

Public Hearing—Inquiry into the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2015 and the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability (Renewal of Mining Leases) Amendment Bill 2015 does now. So 2019 is a very short time away. Basically, to achieve a smooth transition you would need to have an economy emerge by now starting to really turn along to take up and ensure that transition. Clearly, that is not going to happen with the present transition. There has been many examples of transitions of both Moreton and Fraser that have been made by people to suggest that the same may apply to Stradbroke island. I believe these to be unrealistic comparisons, because neither Moreton nor Fraser has near the development and infrastructure supported by an economy that North Stradbroke Island does. Page 18 of the strategy talks about Fraser Island and the success story of the transition away from sandmining and logging, which at one time was the major industry. The last phrase says— Fraser Island has flourished since the end of logging and sand mining, and is now a favourite for local Queenslanders. May I just point out that the population on Fraser Island is 194 people. One could argue that North Stradbroke Island is equally popular with local Queenslanders. I am not sure what the figures are for visitors, but it is a popular destination. At Christmas and Easter time the place is booked to capacity—the camping grounds and resorts. That sort of infrastructure that is on Stradbroke is not on Fraser. This all happens alongside current mining operations. North Stradbroke Island, by comparison, has a population of 2,032. It has medical facilities. It has services—infrastructure—that is far superior on North Stradbroke Island to what is on Fraser. People can have both the great outdoors but they also have the services and basic infrastructure for the other things that they might need. Most of the services and infrastructure on North Stradbroke Island are there because there has been an economy there. Historically, and even currently, they have been supported by the mining company, whether directly, or by grants. There has been a lot of assistance both physical and financial to a lot of the infrastructure and services there. I believe at present about 70 local people are employed full time at the mine. That is just locals. Of course, there are more who may commute. There are other opportunities with contractors and there is a further 16 casuals who are employed for tree-planting season, which is for quite a few months of the year. Local clubs and businesses rely on the economy generated by the mine. A lot of the business owners—and I know a lot of them; as I have said, I have been there for 21 years—are wondering if they are going to be viable when the mine closes down. It is a fear that is there through a lot of the small businesses—’Where are we going to be?’ Stradbroke Ferries, which provide the barge service—and you have probably all been over there and used the ferry or the water taxi—have stated that one-quarter of their turnover is directly invoiced to the company, Sibelco. That is by direct invoice. That is 25 per cent of their business and I would suggest that that percentage would be even higher. There would be contractors and other services that they are not aware of that service the mine. Clearly, there is much to be done to ensure that transition away from mining. If this transition is going to work, there is a lot that has to happen. The Katter party recognised the date 2019 to be too short. I believe that they have put in an alternative bill to end it at 2024. As I have stated in the beginning, I am concerned about the time. I am concerned about the funds. An opportunity that presents itself is that Sibelco has made a statement and put forward in a submission, I believe, that, if allowed to mine to 2027 they could work with the community—and they have tabled different things that they could do—and contribute up to $21 million on top of what the government is putting forward. That is a lot more money and it is a bit more time. In summary, I would just like to say this: we are in a time where there is a downturn in the larger economy. Be it in Queensland, or Australia, things are not going that well. It is essential for government at all times—but particularly now—to make good decisions in managing what they can. This is something that can be managed. The timing of this can be managed to the benefit of all. With the current legislation that we are looking at, given the short time and the lack of funds, it certainly does not look like it is going to be a smooth transition. But one thing that it certainly has done is raise concerns with people like us, the business community and the residents of North Stradbroke Island. Thank you. CHAIR: Thank you. I do not have questions because you guys have been very succinct in explaining the shortcomings that you feel there are in relation to the matter. I thank you for that information, because it will helpful to the committee. Mr CRANDON: Once again, I do not have questions either. I have been writing a lot of notes and, obviously, we have Hansard. I think that you have covered the full spectrum. There is nothing that comes to my mind. Once again, thank you for coming back. Obviously, you are talking from the heart. I understand. You are talking about families, you are talking about livelihoods, you are talking about the future for your families. I thank you for your involvement. Brisbane - 15 - 08 Apr 2016

Mr BROWN: Thanks for coming in. It must be tough times in regard to this process. The current state of play is that mining is to finish at 2035. Do you guys personally have a transition strategy for yourselves after that? What is going through your head when it comes to that date? What are you personally preparing for? Mr Watts: That day in 2035? Mr BROWN: Yes—your personal transition if that date were to remain, because there is a possibility that this bill will not get through. I am just interested to see what plans each of you guys have to transition at 2035. Mr CRANDON: They might be retiring. Mr BROWN: If you have your family and friends working at Sibelco, you have to think about the generations that come— Mr Karklis: The fact is that in three years time the only preparation I have is that I have stopped getting loans. I have to make sure that financially I am prepared and that everything finishes before that date so that I am not relying on anyone else. Obviously, if there was a time of 2027, then you have that knowledge that it is 2027 and you can already be either trained or doing TAFE courses while you are working and doing different things so that you can change roles. If it is 2035, I will be old, fat and still bald, but the biggest thing is that I would hopefully have already transitioned into a role and be in a better position at that age. The longer the time span, the more opportunity I have to prepare myself and my family. CHAIR: Benjamin, you mentioned the ferry and how it has become congested. It was something that I noticed when we went over for our hearings. The whole format of that ferry service seems to have changed. What has happened there? Why has it ended up in the mess that it is? Mr Turuwhenua: I think it is not what has happened, I think it is what has not happened—the space, the number of tourists coming over on fine weekends. If you catch the Straddie flyer, which departs outside the ship club, you have a bus that comes down a one-lane street and you have two cars parked on either side. You have to wait for that bus to come through. The system is insufficient. CHAIR: There has been no infrastructure— Mr Turuwhenua: I do not know if there have been any talks of expanding the car park, but you notice that more and more cars are jamming in. Then the bus does a U-turn. He has to do a three-point turn and only on Stradbroke Island do you see a bus do a three-point turn. I have never seen a bus in the city do a three-point turn. The infrastructure that we have at the moment is not catering for it. When I pick my kids up, I think it is a hazard. I think it is quite dangerous. Mr PERRETT: You touched on this peak period when tourists come to your island. In my electorate there is Rainbow Beach and Inskip Point and accessing Fraser Island. I understand a lot of the issues that have been raised around that. To your local knowledge, in terms of the capacity of the island to be able to take these extra tourists, what needs to happen to avoid all of the issues and danger not only to existing residents but also presumably to growth on the island? Is it possible to be able to develop that in a safe manner? Mr Karklis: The beaches are the most dangerous out of the lot, because of inexperienced drivers trying to get in and off on to the beaches—the dunes, the camping grounds, different things like that. With the maintenance of them, you would have to have heavy machinery or something like that to make sure that there are proper access tracks to get there and that, when they get over the top, the tracks are cleaned and maintained—and not by vehicle but by earthmoving equipment. As soon as you touch some dunes or anything like that in the environment, automatically you are altering stuff and different things like that. I was here in the previous talk when they were talking about capping and different things like that. You get a beach permit and you go down the beach. There is no cap. You could have hundreds of vehicles down on the beach just ripping it up. You have idiots doing burnouts and turning around while your kids are running towards the water and you have the park up on the beach. There definitely has to be some kind of protocol as to how many people are going to each beach. The main beach is the largest beach on the island and there is no-one capping it. So the number of vehicles going up and coming back and how much damage is getting done to the beach, nobody is taking that into account. Something definitely has to be done there. Who is going to be accountable for it? If you turn around and say, ‘Redland Shire Council or the state are looking after the beaches and everything like that’ and they have not cleaned one of the roads and they drive in and roll over and someone dies, who is accountable for it? You have put up a sign saying that it is the No. 1 camp site and there is a hole to your right and the bloke has driven straight into it. That has to definitely be taken into account. Brisbane - 16 - 08 Apr 2016

Mr PEGG: Benjamin, you raised the point that entitlement to a redundancy will not allow you to access things under the workers’ assistance scheme. I wanted to ask you or the other employees here in general terms—I do not expect you to go into your specific circumstances—what is a redundancy worth and what is the range in terms of what the quantum of a redundancy could be? I appreciate it is based on years of service, but in general terms what would workers be looking at? Mr Savins: You have basically answered your own question, because it comes down to terms of service. We have guys that have worked here for 40 years and people like myself who have been here for four years. In my submission I have stated that I have a concern that I might get a redundancy, but it would be relatively small. If I were to get that, then am I still looking to get assistance from that point on? It really does come down to— Mr PEGG: For instance, if you have served five years, how many weeks are you looking at? Mr Savins: I cannot tell you. I cannot answer that question right now. Mr Turuwhenua: Under the agreement if you were hired after 2011, it would be two weeks per year; if you were hired before 2011, it is three weeks per year. Mr PEGG: Is there a cap there as well? Mr Turuwhenua: There is a cap. If you were employed after 2011 I think it is 16 weeks. Mr PEGG: Sixteen weeks is the maximum redundancy? Mr Turuwhenua: From memory. Mr Savins: This is where I would like to make it quite clear, if I have not already, that there are people like myself who are not under the enterprise agreement. I am in a different boat to Jason and Benjamin because I am not under that agreement. I am salary paid; I am not in a union. When I read the workers’ assistance scheme, I am not in that because it does not mention me as being an eligible person. CHAIR: That is why you mentioned in your submissions that you fit into that category of having a trade and also having a degree, and therefore you fall outside the— Mr Savins: Yes. Mr PEGG: What is the difference in entitlements between EBA employees and non-EBA employees in terms of redundancy? Mr Savins: There is a difference there in redundancy. I think the main focus is the actual workers’ assistance scheme document itself and the way that it is worded. It is ultimately two pages to cover $5 million being distributed, and it does not detail how it will be for people who are outside of the enterprise agreement. It is ultimately talking about people who are under an enterprise agreement, but I am not under that agreement. Mr PEGG: I understand that, Ben, but I assume you are still entitled to a redundancy payment? Mr Savins: Yes. Mr PEGG: If you are not comfortable with answering, that is fine. I am just trying to get a sense of what people would be entitled to if they received a redundancy. Mr Savins: There are different conditions. I cannot give you figures here and now. There are differences because we are under a different contract or agreement. My main concern is that eligibility. Even if I do get a redundancy—which I probably will—it probably will not be much. Then am I now not eligible to get anything under that scheme? When I read it, I am not eligible. That is where the concern is. You have $5 million: great. You have a document: great. Where is the detail? Where is the certainty? I cannot see any of it. That is my position. Mr Karklis: There are still three groups: the EA, which most of us have changed over; the AWA, which is the contract agreement and a lot of people did not want to change over because it is a set wage; and then there is staff, which is their own agreement. Each have their own redundancies and everything like that. With the EA, while we are at work we are getting paid what we get. As soon as we do not go to work, which is redundancies and everything like that, we are paid a minimum wage of what we get. A lot of people stayed on the AWA because when they leave, they stay at the same rate that they would be at at work. There is a difference between who is in what. CHAIR: This will be the last question, if there is a question. Brisbane - 17 - 08 Apr 2016

Mr WEIR: I will just ask a quick question. On the island obviously business owners invest in their businesses. As employees of Sibelco you invest in yourselves and your own skills to do the jobs that you are doing. Without significant training, how many of you could transfer the skills that you have now in the roles that you are in and still live on Stradbroke Island? Most of you have said that you own dwellings on the island. How big a transition is it going to be? Mr Savins: That is what I have been trying to achieve in my wording. Do I go back to being a mechanic? I really do not want to, but I could. These are the sorts of questions I am asking myself. I cannot really do that at this point because, like Paul and others have mentioned before, the land use planning of the island is not there to allow me to do that sort of commercial business. I really cannot see anything that is there for me at this point. It is a concern whether I use my trade or my degree qualification, which would be preferable. If I follow my degree qualification and that career I really see myself going fly-in fly-out, and I really do not want to do that. As I have elaborated in both submissions, I have two kids and I do not want to leave the island. Our plan is to stay here and raise our kids on the island. That would be our main goal. Mr Watts: That would be what most people would want to do, but consequently it would mean that a lot of people would leave and that would present a problem, as I think Col Battersby highlighted before. If people are leaving the island it is not going to be good for the local economy. Mr Karklis: The question is with our training and our skill set. The only real job description that I can see coming from the island is water management, because most of our jobs are pipeworks, water management and making sure the water levels are right. The only other job to that is with the council, and that is a significant amount of wage drop. That is the only problem with that, and also getting onto the council. It is not as if they are going to shut mining down and we are all just going to walk into the council and say, ‘This is now our job, thank you very much.’ Water management is the only skill set alternative work that I can see being on the island really. CHAIR: Thank you for your attendance today. The committee appreciates your assistance. You will be provided with a proof of the transcript which will be placed on the committee’s website once it becomes available.

Brisbane - 18 - 08 Apr 2016

SWAN, Mr Ben, Branch Secretary, Australian Workers’ Union CHAIR: I welcome Mr Ben Swan from the Australian Workers’ Union. Thank you for your attendance here today. I note that you have previously been provided with the guide for appearing as a witness. If you wish, you can start by making an opening statement. Mr Swan: Thank you, Chair. I promise to be on my best behaviour today. The committee should have a copy of the further submission I made on 6 April 2016. It is not my intention to go through that in explicit detail. I will take that as read. Obviously I am prepared to take questions from members of the committee if necessary on that. I want to highlight a couple of points regarding some of these issues. The first observation that I wish to make is that it is good that the committee is in a position to hear further evidence from interested parties regarding the economic transition strategy and the workers’ assistance scheme, as it appeared the last time the committee convened this inquiry and heard evidence there would not be scope for the committee to consider those matters. I think parliament has certainly made the right decision in permitting that. However, I will say—and it is a qualification to the submissions that we have made, and indeed I think it would have to be a qualification at large for anyone who has been permitted to appear before the committee—there is still a distinct deficiency in terms of this aspect of the committee’s inquiry and it is this: the materials that the government has sought to rely on, that it commissioned, that it obviously deliberated upon and that it has used to formulate its position with regard to the economic transition strategy and the workers’ assistance scheme, remains unseen. I will put on the record again the fact that we think on questions like this it would have been more beneficial for that material to have been released. Speaking on behalf of the union that I represent, through RTI processes we had sought access to that information. It would have illuminated the basis upon which the government has arrived at the conclusion that it has, particularly around the proposed funding allocation of $20 million and the $5 million out of that allocated to workforce transition. We are unable to discern with any degree of precision when that actually happens and how that is intended to apply. I think that is a deficiency in this process. I will make the observation again that we have been promised a lot about openness and transparency. My union and I fail to see how matters going to a commissioned report to formulate information such as this for the benefit of the public and for this committee can be labelled ‘cabinet in confidence’ merely because it was wheeled in and wheeled out of a cabinet room. I thought we were well beyond those days, but it does not appear that we are. That having been said, I do want to draw your attention to a couple of things. We appended a number of documents to the formal submission that we put in at the outset of this inquiry. One document was the North Stradbroke Island workers’ assistance scheme from November 2015 with marked-up commentary from the Australian Workers’ Union to the Treasury. I have made previous reference to the very brief period that we were provided with this and the brief period that we were given in order to provide a response. I will go to the detail of that shortly. I have made previous reference to the provision of the draft economic transition strategy and the fact that my union received this at 9.30 am on the day on which the bill was introduced into the House and asked for comment. I am going to reiterate the point I made at the last hearing about the notion of consultation and what that means. I understand the secretariat, your research director, should have had access to the case citation that I referenced at the last hearing and the comments of Justice Logan in the Queensland Rail matter. I think it is insufficient that people who have a direct and immediate and meaningful interest in matters of this type are simply shown the end result rather than engaged with on the formulation of that end result, and that is certainly the case with respect to both of these ancillary documents to the government’s bill. What I am about to say regarding the workforce transition strategy points very squarely to the deficiencies in that process. You have heard from four individuals who work on the island and who work for Sibelco comment on their perception about how the economic transition strategy will either affect them or is deficient in terms of not being able to apply to them. I want to go through that in a little bit more detail. There are a number of things that are unclear within that documentation. I am speaking to version 1.1, which may have since been revised. When we provided our response to this, we sought clarity about whether the scheme and the implementation of the transition strategy would be undertaken by ESM in the Queensland government or whether there was an intention to engage an outside provider. We are still uncertain as to what that means. Where it says ‘provide relocation assistance to workers where that is necessary to secure a new job’, it is insufficient on detail of the basic things such as how, what, when, why and to whom does this apply. We do not have detail on Brisbane - 19 - 08 Apr 2016

Public Hearing—Inquiry into the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2015 and the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability (Renewal of Mining Leases) Amendment Bill 2015 what ‘provide housing assistance to affected workers who continue to reside on NSI’ actually means. We do not know what ‘provide access to community assistance for eligible workers who gain employment on the mainland but continue to live on NSI’ means. Under the objectives in that document it refers to ‘eligible workers’. That is a concept that, to my reading, is far from settled. There is no definition of who is in or who is out. If it is, as has been suggested, referable to either an income threshold or their employment under a particular form of industrial instrument, it should be specified very clearly. At point 6 under ‘Employment support through wage subsidies and job placement incentives’, there is a reference to concessional commuting rates in the final paragraph. What is the quantum, either in dollars or percentage terms, of the concession? Again, these are details that people have not been provided with. When we go to ‘Housing assistance’, what is the quantum of the housing assistance and, more to the point, how is that intended to work? We do not have the detail. Under ‘Income supplementation’, at point 9, what is the quantum of this and why is it factored on ordinary time earnings? I say this as someone who represents people throughout Queensland— indeed, as part of a union that represents people throughout Australia in the hard rock, non-coalmining industries including sandmining—a very significant proportion of aggregate earnings for people working in those industries is attributable to overtime and other penalties and allowances on top of base rates. We query whether it is meant to restrict itself to the base rate or whether we are talking about aggregate rates of earning. In my submission, we should be looking at the latter, not the former. There is also the fact that people do work regular and rostered overtime. What do we mean when we talk about employment and qualifications that relate to the concept of employment at point 9? Do we take what became a revised ABS definition of employment many years ago as one hour or more, or do we use some other particular specification around that? We do not know what that means. What does ‘temporarily unable’ mean? I am not making this stuff up. Having practised in industrial relations for two decades and having advocated in courts and commissions on these things, these are technical issues that should be dealt with in a document of such seeming importance as this. They are the first things that spring to my mind. Bear in mind that I personally marked this document up in the space of about half an hour because of the time lines that were imposed on us. I would not put my response to this at the time in the realm of well considered. To a reasonably trained eye, these are the immediate things that I plucked out. Again, it speaks to the fact that, had we been properly consulted during the prelude to the implementation of this bill, had we been engaged with, had we had discussions around these points, what the government has provided may be a much more substantive and meaningful document than the one that is currently presented before this committee. Under ‘Income supplementation’ in the draft plan it states— ... only be made available where affected workers are not eligible for redundancy ... I think we have addressed that point through some of the previous evidence, but there appears to be a qualification or a threshold issue about who is in and who is out. There will be some real issues for people who do not meet that qualification. From an equity basis, how does that sit? Why is it that because someone is employed under a registered enterprise agreement they somehow qualify for assistance when others who may be in a very similar or identical situation to people under the EBA do not qualify? There is an equity issue that sits there as well. That has not been addressed. To whom does dislocation assistance apply? These are critical issues. To whom does this transition strategy apply and in what circumstances? What does it mean in a practical sense? We do not have answers to those things. If there are disputes about the application of the transition strategy to particular individuals or, for that matter, entire cohorts of people, how do those things get dealt with? Where do we go? Do we come back to the committee? Do we go to parliament? Do I ring the Treasurer, or do I sit outside Parliament House rattling the front gates until someone answers my questions or the questions of employees? I simply do not know. Where are the references or commitments to ongoing consultation with unions about the implementation and the monitoring of this? What about the issue of financial advice for transition to retirement strategies for those workers who may be nearing the end of their productive working life? What do we say about that? These are issues that have to be factored in, particularly for people who own homes, albeit with mortgages, who have substantial financial commitments that they have to meet and may have predicated at a point in time in the past a working life or duration on a particular income basis for a given period of time. In answer to the member for Capalaba’s question to some of the individuals earlier, I think most people were anticipating a longer time frame into potentially retirement than is now presented to them. We need to be realistic about how this is all going to work. Brisbane - 20 - 08 Apr 2016

I am going to leave my comments at that other than to give my general perception of both documents. I think the draft economic transition strategy looks great for what it is. It is a nice glossy bit of work and it has the government’s logo on it—the stamp of approval—but I think it is bereft of a lot of meaningful detail. It might be some sort of aspirational indication of what the government’s goals and objectives are, but it is far from a strategic plan in the sense that it does not really direct itself or commit itself to hard time frames, hard funding and very discrete processes. I cannot see that within here. I just see a lot of fluffy references that have been made by various individuals who have been cobbled together to present this thing. In regard to the assistance scheme, I equally get the distinct impression that it has been plucked off the shelf from somewhere deep within Treasury or somewhere else. The old playbook has been dusted off and we will just change the names to suit the exigencies of the particular issue and Bob is your uncle. I think it is unsatisfactory. I have made that representation before. I do not need to recapitulate on all of those points, but I am happy to take questions from the committee on the material that we have provided. CHAIR: I have a question, Ben. In your submission you highlight the importance of a dispute resolution process for decisions that are made under the workers assistance scheme. From your experience in working in the industrial area, can you give the committee some advice on what would be the best process for that dispute resolution to work? Mr Swan: There might be a myriad of schemes or processes that could be employed as part of that. I think the most important thing out of that proposition is who are we meant to be dealing with through this? What is the agency or the unit? What is its functions? What are its powers with regard to this? We have no detail on any of that. We do not know whether it is an outside provider or internally managed within Treasury or one of the other departments. We need to very clearly identify who we are talking about, firstly, and then we are in a position to start discussing what any potential dispute resolution process might mean. It might mean, for instance, that you have externally facilitated mediation. That could be through an independent body of arbitrators or conciliators or you might pick KPMG, Pricewaterhouse or Deloitte’s. Any type of formulation is possible. It is a question of what we are seeking to do and where it goes. It also becomes a question as to the status of the document itself. What does it represent from a legal perspective? It is not contractual. Does it have a statutory effect? That affects judicial review mechanisms for any administrative decision-making undertaken, or there might be other rights that attract to that through other courts. I am ill equipped to answer your question with any degree of certainty precisely because there is no certainty. CHAIR: Your response has been helpful in identifying what my concerns were. Mr CRANDON: Having read through all of the material and having the secretariat also go through it in finer detail and put a whole bunch of questions down that they would like answered, I think it is worth putting this question on the record. You have already answered it. The first question for you on our standard list is: have you been engaged in any discussion of the finer points of worker eligibility for income supplementation and other assistance as outlined in the worker assistance scheme? You have answered the question. I think I need to put the question on the record because nothing that we could see suggested that that was the case so we needed to ask you the question, but if you would like to elaborate even further— Mr Swan: The answer is no. Mr CRANDON: Thank you. Mr BROWN: Ben, in regard to your submission and the negotiations that are occurring in the EBA, I understand you have a dispute about the claim for redundancies. I was wondering what the claim was that you have put forward on behalf of your members. You talked about the lack of overtime and penalties. Does the claim include overtime and penalty rates in that payout? Mr Swan: I am not directly involved in the negotiations. I am the secretary of a large union with a large membership base. We might have up to 50 EBA negotiations going on throughout the state at any one time. I am not that close that I know the detail on the latter part of your question. Whether there is a claim within our log of claims that relates to overtime and allowances being built into the formulation of a redundancy or severance package, I cannot answer that definitively. I am happy to provide further detail to the committee because it will sit within a log of claims if it is there. I can answer the former part of your question definitively, and it is precisely for the reasons that were identified by one of the previous witnesses. There is a chequered history of industrial relations practice at Sibelco on the island, some of which I have been involved in and some of which I have Brisbane - 21 - 08 Apr 2016

Public Hearing—Inquiry into the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2015 and the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability (Renewal of Mining Leases) Amendment Bill 2015 not. I do know that what currently exists is a two-tier system with regard to the application of redundancy entitlements. Even within the one document there are pre-2011 and post-2011 entitlements and there are different formulations that attach to that. At the commencement of negotiation consultations with our members early last year, our claim involved bringing the standards up to alignment with the high-water mark not the low-water mark. Whatever the precise formulation of that is in terms of weeks of service—whether it is three weeks per year and whether we remove the cap and build some other things in—I have a general recollection about that. I know it was a hot topic in some of the early sessions that we conducted last year. I have organisers that have delegated responsibility for managing these things on a day-to-day and week-to-week basis and that is their job. Until I see a concluded result or I am enlivened to particular issues that might lead to an escalation of things, I cannot answer that definitively. Mr WEIR: Thanks, Ben. I think both your submission just now and the Sibelco workers just before has led to a lot of questions for the department when they come back into the room. When the department were here they made the comment that there would be a strategy released with the bill when it was tabled in parliament. As we have gone through this process we know there has been a lot of concern about the cultural and environmental issues on the island. Do you believe that the decision has been made at the expense of the human cost on the island of this bill? Mr Swan: That is an interesting question. I assume that people are aware of my views on this matter. I have not been backwards in coming forwards about it. There are a lot of different competing interests here, so I think you have to speak to that fact and you have to address the fact that in areas like this and with the sorts of complexities of the issues that you are dealing with 100 per cent of people are never going to be happy. That is just how it is. I think from my perspective I and my union are decidedly unhappy about the fact that we have been locked out of this process until we started really becoming vocal. I have drawn that to the committee’s attention in the letter that I wrote to the former chair of the committee back in February. I pored through the ministerial diaries and extracted out all of the dates that every single group involved in this has been consulted with by the government with the exception of the unions and the workers—with the exception of. It sticks out like the proverbial, and that has been the case despite writing to the government on 3 June and writing to the Premier, the Deputy Premier, the Minister for Environment and the Minister for State Development and the Minister for Mines and getting no response to that at all—seeking consultation and getting no response—and having to wage a public sort of battle in the media to try to get some attention. You are asking about the human dimension of this. I represent a part of the human dimension—not all of it, because there are traditional owner issues, there are people who are passionate about the environment and what that means from a lifestyle and a liveability and a sustainability point of view, and I do not deny any person their right to have those issues. But workers have their right too. When workers are excluded from this that causes me concern. Having had a 27-year association with people in this government and in the party that I am a member of and also having a 27-year association with my union, it pains me that I am here in a committee such as this saying the things that I am saying, but what alternative do I have? Had it been the converse—had we been at the other end of the spectrum and been engaged either in 2011 or when the new government was formulating a position on this, a position, mind you, I still maintain where I am yet to see the documentary evidence or any reference or any policy announcement about this being through the election process—I would have expected at the time when the government was seeing fit to consult with everyone about this they should have been consulting with workers. We might be in a fundamentally different position if they had. We may be in a position where I am actually extolling the virtues of the workforce transition plan and the draft economic transition plan and saying that it is a template for what governments should do. I will draw a sharp contradistinction between what has happened in this and what is happening regarding the implementation of the NDIS. They are chalk and cheese. We have been involved from day one with people in this government, including the minister responsible, about the implementation of the NDIS, and that gets my tick of approval because it has been meaningful. They have listened and they have responded—not entirely to our favour, but they have given us access to a process that gives workers a voice. This sits at the other end of the spectrum from a good governance and best practice point of view with regard to how the government chooses to implement legislation and affect people’s lives and affect economies, and this is a big cross against the government on that. But we are where we are. CHAIR: I am conscious of time, and I want to make this clear, Ben: I do not want to shut this down by any stretch of the imagination, but obviously you realise we have other witnesses and it is not fair to keep them waiting unnecessarily. We have time for a couple more questions and then I am going to close it down. Brisbane - 22 - 08 Apr 2016

Mr PERRETT: Thank you, Ben, for being here today. Ben, as a committee we have to make a recommendation to the parliament whether this bill passes or whether it should not. The one issue that you highlighted in your opening statement and particularly in our deliberations has been about the regulatory impact statement—the fact that that document is not available to inform us as a committee or you as a union or the chamber of commerce or anyone else in respect of what the actual real impacts are from a financial perspective, whether it be workers, whether it be business or whether it be any other aspects on the island. Ben, should we be recommending to the parliament that this bill pass if that document has not been made publicly available? Mr Swan: I do not profess to be au fait with parliamentary procedure. I am aware of the fact that there are legislative standards that should compel the government to do certain things and I am certainly aware of the fact that proposed legislation should be accompanied by regulatory impact statements. Those regulatory impact statements should also be fairly expansive and cover the spectrum, possibly including things like process issues leading up to the formulation of the legislation. I do not believe that the government’s proposed legislation should be recommended for passage through the parliament and approval of the parliament. I was asked a question the last time that I appeared what my view on the other proposed legislation was. I think my answer was it is more preferable than the government’s, but it is not the most optimal. The most optimal time frame from what I understand is 2027. From a capital expenditure point of view, from a return point of view and from a social investment point of view, 2027 is the preferable period of time. 2024 is much better than 2019, but I just simply will not endorse—to the extent that my endorsement is necessary or even if it is influential—a time frame of 2019 because I think it lets so many down on so many different fronts. Mr PERRETT: Thank you. Mr CRANDON: I wanted to pick up the issue further to the question from the member for Capalaba about factoring in overtime and what have you. If you are in a negotiation with a firm in relation to a workforce that is perhaps working on a normal eight-hour day or seven-hour day and you were negotiating a couple of weeks a year type redundancy packages, if overtime was a significant part of another firm’s business practices—they are paying significant overtime—would it be fair to say that you would factor that in? If you were not going to be talking about the overtime itself, would you factor it in and push the number of weeks per year out further to take it into account? Does that make sense? If we have two weeks a year for someone who is on a 35- or 37½-hour week as opposed to someone who is doing 10 hours or 15 hours of overtime each and every week, then it would be fair to say that if it was going to be all based on ordinary time earnings you would be pushing harder for more weeks or more days of redundancy? Is that— Mr Swan: Mr Crandon, I am going to answer it this way: I am mindful of the fact that I am on the record. I am also a union secretary. Mr CRANDON: Sure. Mr Swan: There would be very few union secretaries in this country that would not push for the most at every opportunity. I am amongst them. If I was coming to a formulation of redundancy or severance entitlements and looking at questions about overtime and regular overtime, they would be the first things that I would be including in my calculations. Mr CRANDON: Arguing it in? Mr Swan: Yes. Mr CRANDON: Thank you. CHAIR: Thanks, Ben, for your insight into this complex issue. It is appreciated. As you know, the proof of the transcript will be on the web when it is available and also made available to you. Thank you again. Mr Swan: Thank you very much. Proceedings suspended from 12.40 pm to 1.03 pm

Brisbane - 23 - 08 Apr 2016

COSTELLO, Mr Cameron, Chief Executive Officer, Quandamooka Yoolooburrabee Aboriginal Corporation CHAIR: I welcome Mr Cameron Costello from the Quandamooka Yoolooburrabee Aboriginal Corporation. Thank you for your attendance here today. I note you have been provided with a guide to appearing as a witness before a committee. Would you like to make an opening statement? Mr Costello: Sure. I want to firstly acknowledge the traditional owners of this land that we are meeting on and conducting very important business and also acknowledge the parliament’s ground that we are on and the importance of this establishment. In terms of my involvement, I am a representative of the Quandamooka people and QYAC, who I represent, is the only organisation on the island that has been appointed by the community, by the first nation of the Quandamooka people. I come as a representative of them to do business with you. It is great to be back and I appreciate and thank the parliamentary committee for inviting me to assist you with your inquiry. There is another new face. I welcome the member for Capalaba. We have had a few changes, which is always interesting to see. So welcome. I would like to address the economic transition strategy from the perspective of the Quandamooka people. QYAC, on behalf of the Quandamooka people, is fully supportive of the economic transition package and the workers’ transition package from Minjerribah—North Stradbroke Island. I am one of the fluffy characters, as Ben from the AWU said, who is in that document. I feel like I can speak to that document, because I have been involved in it since March last year. It is also important for us to give our evidence because we were the ones who secured the $20 million through a pre-election commitment. We were the ones who wrote to the then Labor opposition seeking the $20 million transition package. It is important that we are here, because we are the ones who instigated this economic transition. The Quandamooka people, comprising the Ngugi, Noonuccal and Gorenpul people, have been living on and around Minjerribah—North Stradbroke Island—for thousands of years. The overwhelming majority are very excited about the future and we are looking forward to working with the broader Minjerribah community and the Queensland community and industries to reshape the island as Australia’s most sustainable island community. However, we have to go back to one clear point about the economics of this and the economic transition strategy. That point is that the Quandamooka people, as a collective entity, is the largest landholder on the island. If you put together the landholdings of the other 84 members of the chamber of commerce, they would not come close to the landholdings of the Quandamooka people. I make that point, because a lot of the questions going to the chamber of commerce really should be coming to us. If you are talking about the land use planning process, it is us. If you are talking about the management of beaches, it is us, because we have 54,000 hectares of property rights on land and sea on and around the island. One of the key things that I want to point out today around the economics and the economic transition is that there has been a distinct exclusion—or noninclusion— of the Quandamooka people and their property rights in any of the economic transition analysis documents. I will get to that sooner. On 4 July, as we said in our previous submissions, the Federal Court made a native title determination. There has been a lot of discussion around property rights of the mining leaseholder, Sibelco, about sovereign risk, about the needs and concerns of a range of individuals and business interests. However, the economic starting point is us, the Quandamooka people and therein lies the opportunity, because we are the largest landholders. The opportunity for economic development relies on a partnership with us. That is what we are excited about. Justice Dowsett said in the determination that the orders recognise the Quandamooka people’s native title rights and interests within the Australian legal system and extend the protection of that system to those rights and interests. I have not come here today to give anything to the Quandamooka people. His orders give them nothing. Rather, I come on behalf of all Australian people to recognise their existing rights and interests, which rights and interests have their roots in time before 1788, only some of which have survived European settlement. Those surviving rights and interests I now acknowledge and, in so doing, I bind all people for all time similarly as the Commonwealth of Australia, the state of Queensland, the Redland City Council and the Brisbane City Council. I have made that statement before and I will say it again, because it is extremely important. The land and property rights on which the economic development basis needs to occur comes from the Quandamooka people. Brisbane - 24 - 08 Apr 2016

Sandmining commenced on Minjerribah at a time when the legal fallacy of terra nullius held sway within the Australian legal system. It was an attempt to pretend that long-running Aboriginal land and territory law did not exist post European occupation. The Mabo decision has changed that. It has significantly altered that and what we are finding is that it is now a journey between us and government and industry and community about how native title is respected and upheld and works collectively as a property right with the rest of the community. This is why we use the expression ‘Through native title to a glad tomorrow’. It is because it must be through native title a glad tomorrow. There can be no extension of mining, because our property rights are there. If there has to be an extension, it has to come through us. The economic transition challenge is not a new one to the Quandamooka people. The arrival of Europeans brought many economic transitions for us and our resilience, our creativity, our innovation has meant that we have been through all of these ups and downs. This is another one, another challenge, and one that we are excited about, because we have been consulted and have been included in how it moves forward. I have given you our submission. There are a couple of key things that I want to point out and then I am all yours. One is that, historically, we have been excluded from the economics of the island. It was not until 1967 that we were even citizens. So obtaining an economic foundation for us has been unable to be achieved. From the economic transition process, which was commenced in 2010— the discussions with community and there were community documents—it was clear from that point that the Quandamooka people said, ‘Hey, we need to be included in this, because we need to address and redress the economic exclusion of the Quandamooka people.’ The document that you have has a lot of initiatives that we have put forward, one, because it is just; and, two, because, as the major property holder, we are necessary for it. I wanted to also raise with the committee the number of economic analysis reports that have been done and differing views. I do not want to go into depth about that, except to say one very important fact: none of the reports—none of them—mention the Quandamooka people’s property rights and the value of those property rights if mining is to continue and suppress them: none of them. So whilst everyone is saying ‘economic benefits’, any economic analysis has to look at the economic costs. The Quandamooka people’s economic costs—its opportunity costs since mining has continued since 2010—for us to unlock that land, for us to unlock that economic development site of the Enterprise Mine, none of those costs have been included in any of those reports, the property rights, the economic use of those lands and also the social, cultural and environmental costs to the Quandamooka people of the mining continuing. There have been a number of reports done using the economic modelling that should be used in the Wet Tropics and in Kakadu in the 1990s, where they came to the conclusion that, when you include the costs beyond the economic costs—and you can value them—mining is a negative. It has a negative cost. That is our view, because when we look at the reports we can see that the costs to us, the opportunity costs, far outweigh the benefits of mining and I am confident to sit up here and tell you that. The economic transition initiatives have come about through the consultation that began in 2010. Back then there was community consultation all through the island. We were a part of it. Sibelco was a part of it. The chamber of commerce was a part of it. It was done to death. Out of that a number of documents were produced. Within those was an Indigenous business plan or research. A lot of those initiatives have actually come from 2011. Everyone is saying that we do not want to go through another big process. The government listened and said we will review the ones from 2011 and we will add to those and look at it in the context of moving forward. There are a lot of those that we are extremely comfortable with and excited about and we proposed. What they do is work towards the vision of a global ecocultural tourism destination. The three strands of it are essential. They are proper and right. They suit the Quandamooka people and what we want to do with our land at sea. Our economic transition has been occurring since 2011. One example of that is Straddie Camping. We have been attracting private investors. We have been able to attract over $7 million ourselves. In the first three years we have turned a business on the island that was run by the council and not making a profit into a profitable business. With the development of QYAC and Straddie Camping we have been able to create 40 jobs on our own. In how many years—40 jobs? We are not afraid. We are not scared. Chicken Little has been running around ever since 2011 saying that the sky is going to fall in—when Vance closed and Brisbane - 25 - 08 Apr 2016

Yarraman closed. You talked to the chamber guys. What was the impact? There was no major outcry when 40 per cent of the workforce went when Yarraman closed. There was no ripple. No-one said anything. It was kept a secret. We are not afraid at all. In fact, we are very confident, given the number of approaches we have had for development on our lands, that we will be able to achieve great economic transition, and one that is worthy of the island. I look at the other great natural features and attractions throughout Australia and their brand is everything. The Great Barrier Reef’s brand is worth a lot of money. If mining continues our vision for our island to be a global ecocultural tourism destination will be damaged. That is a fact. It will damage our brand. From our perspective, we are happily moving along. The economic transition identifies a number of great initiatives across a range of industries that we will support and will invest in ourselves. We think the workers assistance package is a great idea. We agree that continued work on that could happen. We will look at that. We are supportive of that. Our elders support that and supporting our workers on the island. Everyone wants to support them and help them and broaden the package if we need to. Even after attending all of these forums, I am still not clear on some things. We know that only 69 island residents are working for Sibelco. They have said it themselves. We still do not know how many of those are going to be required for the five to 10 years of rehabilitation after 2019. After 2019 those 69 workers are not going to disappear overnight. They need a workforce to undertake their rehabilitation. I would suggest and recommend to the committee to get to the actual real number of people who will go after the 2019 deadline. We need to know how many of the 69 are still going to be there doing the rehabilitation work for the next five to 10 years after the deadline. The other thing we still do not know is what do those 69 workers do? They are not all out on heavy machinery. They have office workers. They have a whole range of demographics amongst their workers. We are keen to help wherever we can. The businesses we are creating are keen to help. We cannot help if we do not know the true numbers and the true demographics of those workers. How many are retiring? How many are office workers? How many are in the environmental area? We had some guys talking about water today. They are the kinds of areas that we are looking at investing in. We would be very interested in helping to carry that load. We are very supportive of the economic transition strategy. We believe that any of the initiatives in the economic transition strategy that are aligned with QYAC or that QYAC is going to deliver need to come out now and go to QYAC so there is no delay. The funding for the cultural centre, the whale watching facilities, the learning centre needs to come to us straight away because we are ready to go. We have been ready to go for three or four years. So we are ready to implement this strategy now. We are happy to move on it quickly. I want to finish by going back to where I started. The property rights of the Quandamooka people are what has been missing in this equation. The questions need to come back to us because, at the end of the day, it is our legal right to be say yes or no as to what happens on our lands. Any of that planning needs to get our approval. CHAIR: The camping joint venture agreement took about three years—correct me if I am wrong—to be negotiated? Mr Costello: In 2010 there was 1½ years of negotiation around that. Then it started business in October or November 2012. It is interesting how that all evolved. It was originally put out to tender by the council and then it became part of the native title negotiations. There was a bit of a process around that. In terms of the employment of CEOs and all that sort of thing that was done in background anyway. CHAIR: In terms of other future business ventures that come under the recognition of native title, do you envisage that it will take the same length of time to try to get those off the ground, for want of better terminology? Mr Costello: We have been receiving a lot of proposals about development since 2011. We have an investment committee. We need to know what is going to happen. It is not going to take three years. CHAIR: Do you think that some of the initial complexities in terms of getting the first one off the ground have been resolved— Mr Costello: Yes, for sure. CHAIR:—or do you envisage them existing into the future? Brisbane - 26 - 08 Apr 2016

Mr Costello: There are two types of businesses. There are those that require whole-of-Quandamooka-people authorisation and then there are those that QYAC decides on. Those businesses are ready to go. There are a few more things there to do. There are ones that we are looking to have start this year. We are keen to get this moving. CHAIR: There has been mention earlier today about joining the three points on the island with a walking trail as well as a mountain bike trail. Obviously that would impinge on the rights of native title. How long would a project like that take? Mr Costello: It is whether that is a priority project and whether it would deliver the number of jobs a cultural centre would deliver. From our perspective we believe there are other projects that will deliver greatly. We have a capital works forum with Redland City Council. We look at what their capital works are and we work out native title and cultural heritage issues years in advance. It is really not a big issue. Where it affects native title and people’s rights it requires an authorisation meeting with the people involved. We would do a number of proposals at that time. In terms of getting approvals and that sort of thing, it might take a year. CHAIR: If I could put it in perspective, the cultural centre is a priority and the walking track and the bike track could be one of the projects in the mix but it is a case of where it fits to get the best outcome. Mr Costello: The way I would look at it is that if there are a number of economic transition projects and they impact on native title rights and we need an authorisation from the Quandamooka people we will take them all at the one time. We would say that this is what we are looking at and we would get the authorisation. We would not go back and have an authorisation meeting for every single project. I am not saying that the tracks are not a good idea. CHAIR: I was just using that as an example because it was brought up today. I am sure there are other projects that I have not even thought about. Mr CRANDON: Can you just clarify something for me—this is not my question. You said in your testimony a short while ago that the government excluded you from the economic strategy. Mr Costello: That is a historical perspective—not this government. Mr CRANDON: Not this government? Mr Costello: No, if you look at the history of the Quandamooka people in terms of economic development in the region— Mr CRANDON: So you were talking about an historical fact going way back. You have not been excluded now? You said you have created 40 jobs. We have not seen that anywhere or in any of the material that you have given to us, that I am aware of or the secretariat is aware of. Where are those jobs that you have created? You said, ‘Over how many years.’ You asked that question. That is my question to you: over how many years? That is the first part of the question. If you could give some detail around that it would be appreciated. The second part is following on from what the chair was just talking about. How many jobs are you planning for in your economic strategy? Mr Costello: In terms of the jobs that have been created with QYAC and its related entities, firstly there is QYAC itself. We have about 24 jobs—11 full time, four part time and seven casuals, plus two cultural heritage monitors who work on an ongoing basis. Mr CRANDON: What sort of work are they doing? Mr Costello: A range of things through— Mr CRANDON: Are you included? Mr Costello: Yes. There is my position and I have managerial staff in different areas. We have a corporate services area. We have QALSMA—the Quandamooka Aboriginal Land and Sea Management Agency—which undertakes land works. We also have a native title cultural heritage unit with coordinators in it. We have been able, through native title, to bring on four extra Quandamooka rangers who are part of the agreement with the state government. Mr CRANDON: So they are part of 24 as well? Mr Costello: No, they are extra. Mr CRANDON: So these are extra? Mr Costello: They are extra. Then we have 12 Aboriginal employees who are on board with Straddie Camping. It is more than that now. I spoke to the Straddie Camping manager and it is increasing. I could get that number for you. Brisbane - 27 - 08 Apr 2016

Mr CRANDON: If you can that would be good. What are their roles? Can we ask you to give us the breakdown of the roles? Obviously, you are going to be up there. How many jobs are there? We have never heard this. We have just picked up here that there are 30 to 40 people in the rehabilitation area in your view. How many jobs are you planning for in your economic strategy short term, medium term and long-term? What is your plan? Mr Costello: We do not have a specific number of jobs we want to get. It will be in accordance with what comes out of the approved projects. If a cultural centre is to come out and there is going to be a number of jobs that we will have to generate for our community— Mr CRANDON: Any idea of the number? Mr Costello: It could be between five and 10 out of that. Then we have our whale watching permit. We are looking at JVs around whale watching. We are hoping to create another three or four jobs there. It is across industries. We are looking at a range of joint ventures with a number of industries. It will be a gradual aggregate of positions. I am hoping to get another 40 jobs within another four years for the Quandamooka people. Mr CRANDON: So 40 jobs within four years? Mr Costello: One thing I do want to stress is that we are also very conscious of the mine workers going, so we are very conscious of how we want to incorporate not just Quandamooka people, but other non-Quandamooka people in ensuring that any businesses that we have may be compatible, like the lad today said about water industries and things like that. We are keen to look at how we can work with those workers coming out and we are keen to be involved with the workers’ assistance package. One of the suggestions that we have made, Michael, is around having an annual employment expo particularly for Quandamooka. The other thing too is that we have Quandamooka people wanting to come back to country and work. People are saying that they want to leave the island, but we have requests to come back and that is growing. I guess it is just analysing and seeing how it could work. Mr CRANDON: The 40 jobs within four years, they would be some full time and some part time, the same as this group that you already have on board? Mr Costello: Yes. Mr CRANDON: Can you also provide us with your wages bill so that we can get an idea of what the average incomes are for those 40 versus other employment opportunities and what have you? Mr Costello: Sure. Mr CRANDON: Is that possible as well? At this stage those are all of the questions that I have. Mr PEGG: Cameron, I know that you have sat in on most, if not all, of the public forums that we have had so far. In terms of the transition strategy, there has been a lot of talk about getting that going before mining ceases. I can understand people’s point of view on that. In terms of QYAC’s role in the transition and what you are looking to do, to what extent do you need mining to cease before you can proceed with some of your projects? Mr Costello: When you talk about the land use planning process, one of the things that occurred was the land is coming back to the Quandamooka people. We have to look to unlock the social, cultural, environmental and economic development, so we had to go through our own internal process to look at what opportunities lie on the island. We had workshops with the Quandamooka people, our mob, over a period of time and said, ‘This bit of land is coming back. What are your ideas around that?’ The Enterprise mine site is an obvious one for economic development that was identified. In fact, so was Yarraman. It makes sense that, if you are going to do some sort of development, you are going to go where an old mine site was. You are exactly right, and that is why we are saying in the economic analyses that have been done no-one is talking about the opportunity costs for QYAC, the Quandamooka people, if mining continues. We have heard about $15 million in royalties. If you take the value of the land alone that we have been held back from, in our minds it is our property. We have property rights to that mine site come 2019. You have seen the scale and size of that lease. How much is that worth? People are saying $15 million, but that does not come close. There is a significant cost to the Quandamooka people for mining to continue and the economic development aspirations on that Enterprise site. Mr PERRETT: You mentioned earlier in your opening statement about the economic transition amount of $20 million. I do not know whether you wrote to the previous government seeking that amount, but you have certainly mentioned that amount. Did you seek that $20 million from the Brisbane - 28 - 08 Apr 2016

Public Hearing—Inquiry into the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2015 and the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability (Renewal of Mining Leases) Amendment Bill 2015 previous government, or did you seek more? It has been suggested by a number of people throughout our hearings that that amount is well short of what will be needed for further investment. Is that what you sought from the previous government prior to the last election, $20 million, or did you seek another amount? Mr Costello: No, it was $20 million. I am happy to table the letters for the committee. In terms of the amount, I think people are saying up to $57 million or $67 million. We saw that document as part of the consultation process, and it was very clear to us that that was not the amount that was needed and that it was a suite of potential projects. How long is a piece of string? You could call for a lot of stuff. We are happy to look at $20 million. We are happy to use that money to go out and leverage other sources of funding such as private investment. With the investment inquiries we have had, we are confident that we can build on that. That would be my answer. Mr PERRETT: What is your plan and is it publicly available? Yes, there may be certain riders about certain areas that you do not have access to now, but there are obviously areas that you do. Is that land use planning document, or your proposals for this land that is now covered by native title and that you have access to, publicly available? Mr Costello: No, it is not publicly available because it is commercial-in-confidence. It would be like any landholder; we act on behalf of our Quandamooka people. For us to go out and say that we are going to be doing this, it is commercial-in-confidence material. The land use planning process itself is scheduled to finish at the end of this year, I think, so there will be potential to then look at projects that might become public. That is the nature of business. With any property holder there is always that commercial-in-confidence element to it. We have that, and I guess that is what we have to do for our members. In saying that, we are looking at economic transition initiatives that would need to occur on Quandamooka land, and we are aware of that from a land use planning prospective. Mr PERRETT: How do you then identify partners for investment? If this document is not publicly available, how do you then look for partners and investors to be able to confidently invest in this? There is no dispute that you own the land and you have access to it, so generally speaking when you have those sorts of things tied up that then frees up the opportunity to go public with respect to your plans, looking for partners and investors that can then work within the framework that you put in place. I am just curious as to why, given that you have had the fundamental part of that with native title for a number of years, you are not more open with respect to plans for the future. Particularly in a time of uncertainty there may be a very great opportunity to play a very, very important role and ease the minds of a lot of other people. Mr Costello: Yes, and certainly we are conscious of that. The reality is we have not had to put out too much notice to potential investors. There are a lot of potential investors who live on the island, so we have been approached by a number of them. We are at the stage that you are talking about. The time for us to say, ‘We want to have an investment workshop,’ is coming soon, but we have to follow our processes according to what is right and proper for the Quandamooka people. We are engaged in public documents and saying, ‘These are great initiatives to look at.’ They are the starting point for talking to people, but I think within that they are talking about investment workshops. Of course we would be part of that, and we would be wanting to look at investors who are into global eco-cultural tourism and other industries that we would be interested in. We have identified a lot of those business opportunities. We know who the JVs would be, whether it is construction or whether it is another industry. We know who the major players are, and we go out and actively seek partnerships with them. We are out networking and engaging with potential joint venturers, and we have been for the last few years in preparation for what is coming; for example, Queens Wharf and Howard Smith wharves. There are lots of opportunities to engage with them in terms of our partnerships for joint ventures for tourism. We are very interested in working with them. We have been working with a lot of government agencies like Tourism and Events Queensland and the Queensland Tourism Industry Council. There are a lot of engagements that we are having as the groundwork behind it. Yes, it is unfortunate but we have to follow that process. There will be investment workshops and things, and I think it is in there as part of that. Mr BROWN: We are now going through the process of the Keyholes track being shut, and it quickly came to my realisation how many different entities control the one track to access one of the natural wonders of Straddie. That includes Sibelco, yourselves and obviously a couple of other government departments. Is that the type of land use where you see barriers because Sibelco has control over those leases? Are there any other examples of where those natural wonders will be able to be opened up once you have control of the land? Brisbane - 29 - 08 Apr 2016

Mr Costello: That is a great question. There are access, legacy and safety issues. Access to the Keyholes is by state government, but we want to see a Keyholes recreation plan to open it up and plan for walking tracks and trails, particularly through the national park. There are a whole range of opportunities and new nodes for tourists to access. There are a range of landholders. It would help us greatly if there were fewer landholders, and that is just a process too. There are legacy issues. I always say that we are the ones left holding the baby, so there are a lot of reserves and things that will be coming to Quandamooka. Because of the history of mining on the island, a lot of those have legacy issues. I have to be vigilant to ask, ‘What is the condition of that piece of land that is going to be coming back? You have to make that good,’ whether it is the mining company or whether it is the state government or whether it is council. There are a lot of legacy issues. It would make it easier if there were fewer landholders involved, particularly government agencies. They all have their local laws and state laws about what they can do around compliance. The one thing that we believe would be extremely helpful is a recreation management plan for the island. I think that is essential for us moving forward, particularly around managing tourism and other things. There is a great opportunity for whole-of-island fire management. Because we are the major property holder we are looking at how our property interest in Dunwich links to Brown Lake, links to the golf club and links to Blue Lake, so we are looking at it from that perspective of how do we join paths and all those sorts of things. They are all part of our thinking and we will consider those. The Quandamooka Aboriginal Land and Sea Management Agency is actively thinking about those legacy issues and where it is appropriate from a cultural heritage perspective to take a path. We are the joint managers of the national park and we are going to have our own landholding, so fire management for the island is pretty much going to be coordinated for once. That is going to be really great, so we can actually plan out amongst one or two landholders how we manage the island for fire, pest, weed and fox. Mr BROWN: I was visited by Quandamooka Oysters last week and it seems that during this process there are more and more investment opportunities that people are coming forward to the government and yourself with. They want to establish an oyster shed employing up to 10 people to try to increase the amount of Moreton Bay oysters that are grown. Have you found that during this process investment opportunities are coming out and this document has to have some fluidity because of those opportunities? Mr Costello: Yes, and that is why we had to set up an investment committee because we were getting so many and also because we were getting drowned by people’s proposals. We thought, ‘Actually, what do we want to do?’ We had to create a system to say, ‘These are the proposals coming in and how we want to deal with that and then here’s what our aspirations are in terms of economic development and going out and pursuing that,’ because a lot of our time is getting caught up in proposals. We have spent some time on proposals that when you get to the bottom of it they are not good proposals. We have a filtering system of making sure that they are good economic proposals, so we have created a system for that. Aquaculture is one of the businesses that we have identified and the Indigenous Business Development Fund is in there. There are a lot of proposals that are in that sector, so we have identified key sectors and key areas that we think we can activate and activate quickly. Mr BROWN: Thanks. CHAIR: I am conscious of time, so this will be the last question from the deputy chair. Mr CRANDON: It is actually a flow-on question from what Don has just been saying, Cameron, but I wrote it down right back at the beginning. Have you had any issues getting approvals in the past—approvals to do various things given you were talking about government departments? I am also aware that we have these environmental groups that weighed into this and we see plenty of that happening around the state. Have you had issues in the past? Do you envisage having issues in the future in relation to getting approvals to do the various things that only you know you are thinking about doing from the state government? Do you see any pushback from environmentalists and things of that nature? What is the time line on getting through the system? Sorry that that question is a bit lumped, but do you see where I am coming from? Mr Costello: Absolutely. The Quandamooka people in terms of development are required to go through the same development and planning laws as anybody else, as any other property holder. In terms of our aspirations with regard to the environment groups, we actually think the expertise of those environmental groups will be beneficial for being a global ecocultural tourism destination. A lot of their views and expertise will be helpful in how we design our projects moving forward. We are also very conscious of the potential damage to cultural heritage sites in development and the environment, Brisbane - 30 - 08 Apr 2016

Public Hearing—Inquiry into the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2015 and the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability (Renewal of Mining Leases) Amendment Bill 2015 so that is why we have been looking at particular sites like ex-mining sites that are potential for us. For example, the cultural centre and the refurb of the learning centre are on an existing lease which has nothing to do with the environment. I think there are some projects where it will not be as hard as it will be for others, but that is where we are looking at working closely with all of the stakeholders. We will be working closely with Sibelco as well to look at what infrastructure can be left behind so that we can utilise that. Mr CRANDON: Just to be clear, native title does not override what the state can require of you in terms of planning? You still have to front up— Mr Costello: We would have to put in a development application like everyone else and it is subject to the rules and laws of local and state planning acts. Mr CRANDON: Yes, red tape. Mr Costello: I just need to put a caveat on what I said previously around the number of jobs. I can give you QYAC’s because that is publicly available. I would have to seek permission from Queensland Parks and Wildlife and Straddie Camping as to their figures because they are— Mr CRANDON: You are not Straddie Camping? Mr Costello: It is its own company, but we are a shareholder and part owner of it. We have other shareholders that we have to get approval from. Mr CRANDON: Okay. I cannot imagine us having any problem getting the information from Parks and Wildlife. Mr Costello: Yes. I am happy to follow it up, Michael. I just have to check. Mr CRANDON: Good on you. Thank you. CHAIR: Thank you, Cameron, for your assistance again today. That brings this part of the session to a conclusion. A proof of the transcript will be on the committee’s website once it becomes available. You have to make those documents available by the 14th. If that is not possible, Cameron, could you talk to the secretariat about that? Mr Costello: Yes. CHAIR: Thank you.

Brisbane - 31 - 08 Apr 2016

ANDREW, Mr Matthew, Executive Director, Industry Development, Office of the Chief Economist, Department of State Development

DANN, Mr Trevor, Director, Economic Policy (Infrastructure), Economics Division, Queensland Treasury

ELLEM, Ms Danielle, Director, Industry Strategy and Policy, Office of the Chief Economist, Department of State Development

McFADYEN, Ms Catherine, Director, Economic Policy (Infrastructure), Economics Division, Queensland Treasury CHAIR: I welcome officers from the Department of State Development and Queensland Treasury. I propose to finish this session at about quarter to three, so I will open it up to questions. Mr CRANDON: I saw you guys sitting down the back taking mad notes on a whole bunch of questions from the four workers in particular. There were a number of questions, and this one came from one of the Bens. Where do union members who are under particular agreements and non-union members under different agreements—and it may be that the union thing has little to do with it; someone indicated that there were three different agreements in place in that there was a salaried person et cetera—all sit as far as entitlements are concerned in relation to this $5 million thing? Who gets what? Ms McFadyen: I guess the one thing to say in relation to the scheme overall is that the scheme that has been released is a draft scheme and is subject to final consultation and to final government decision. I will go on to answer the question, but I guess just as an overall caveat the scheme was put out and the plan has always been that once the legislation is passed there will then be consultation with workers and with relevant unions and that information will be sought from Sibelco prior to finalising the design of the scheme, and obviously that final design will be subject to final government consideration and decision. In relation to eligibility and the questions that came up, there is no intention that eligibility is determined based on which agreement you are under. Eligibility is restricted to those workers who will be substantially impacted by the phasing out of sandmining. That will be permanent workers and in some cases eligible casual workers, but there was no intention to say you had to be under one agreement or under another agreement. The eligibility will be based on whether you are a permanent worker and then if you are a casual worker they will have to demonstrate substantial impact and it will be the responsibility of the employment services manager to determine if you are eligible. Mr CRANDON: There is no certainty there. The second part of that is that is it correct that any employee who receives a redundancy payment from Sibelco will be excluded from the entitlements under this $5 million? Ms McFadyen: No. If you are a permanent worker or if you are an eligible casual worker, you will be able to go to the ESM or to the caseworkers and seek assistance. In terms of some elements of the scheme such as income supplementation, in the first instance the focus will be on helping those workers that need it most, so the focus in the first instance is intended to be on those workers that have not received redundancy payments. In terms of the final details of the scheme—exactly who will be eligible for what—that has not been established yet, but the intention is to support those workers that need it most and to supplement rather than replace the assistance provided by Sibelco or the Commonwealth government. Mr CRANDON: Yes, but these guys were fairly clear in their understanding of what they had read—that is, if you got a redundancy from Sibelco you did not get anything from the scheme. That is what they were saying. Ms McFadyen: The draft scheme has been on the website and one of the elements of the scheme—there are quite a few potential elements of the scheme, obviously all subject to finalisation— is potential income supplementation, and that indicates that that measure will in the first instance only be made available where affected workers are not eligible for redundancy payments. In the first instance the focus will be on those workers that need the help the most. Mr CRANDON: Okay. Under item 10 it talks about, for example, the dislocation assistance and what have you where affected workers are not eligible for redundancy payments under the Sibelco Australia Ltd North Stradbroke Island Mineral Sands Enterprise Agreement 2011. So they are not eligible? Brisbane - 32 - 08 Apr 2016

Ms McFadyen: Yes. Mr CRANDON: Somehow or other they may be entitled to a once-only lump sum payment based on continuous service within the mineral sandmining and processing industry and payment to eligible workers will vary based on periods and so forth. Maybe that is where they are getting it from. Ms McFadyen: Yes. My reading of that is that that is saying for that specific element—the dislocation assistance—where they are not eligible for redundancy payments one of the forms of assistance may be this additional lump sum but— Mr CRANDON: Sorry to cut you off there, but item 9 relating to income supplementation says that this measure will, in the first instance, only be made available where affected workers are not eligible for redundancy payments under the Sibelco Australia Ltd North Stradbroke Island Mineral Sands Enterprise Agreement 2011. Ms McFadyen: Yes. I think the thing is the eligibility for assistance under the scheme overall will be determined by if you are a permanent worker or if you are an eligible casual worker, but there may be individual elements within the scheme where eligibility might be more restricted or where the focus might be more on the workers in need most. Mr CRANDON: It looks like there is a lot of get out of jail free cards for the government in this thing here, and that is what those guys were worried about. Ms McFadyen: As I said—and sorry to repeat—the final design of the scheme will be subject to consultation with workers and with relevant unions and then it will be put to the government for final decision. Mr PEGG: I have a question about the NBN. I speak to a lot of local business owners in my area and the NBN is something that will be really useful for them. Unfortunately there is an issue in my electorate where suburbs have been on the rollout map and then they have been taken off, so it certainly has been botched by the federal government in my area and I know how challenging it can be dealing with the federal government on that particular issue. I wanted to ask if the department would be engaging with the federal government to encourage the early rollout of the NBN on North Stradbroke Island. Mr Andrew: We will obviously be engaging with the federal government on a range of issues where they can assist in terms of the economic transition strategy. I do not think we have specifically addressed the NBN at any stage, but we can certainly take that on board. Mr PEGG: Great. Thanks. Mr PERRETT: I have a couple of questions and I can space these out because we do have a bit of time. I want to touch on the RIS again. I know you have been very careful and you are in a very difficult position with respect to that matter, but I am still concerned and I am going to put this to you so it is on the public record in respect of the decisions that are coming out of this, particularly the further inquiry the committee is now undertaking with regard to the regulatory impact issues around the transition and what is applicable. I know that these documents have been taken into cabinet and there is cabinet confidentiality attached. From the department’s perspective, is this normal practice in respect of such change regarding this legislation and the hearings we have had from all sorts of groups, particularly businesses? Is it normal practice for such an important document to be taken out of the public domain, particularly when we are now considering the very real issues of the economic impact not only on the workers but also on the island in the short to medium term? Mr Andrew: Are you referring to the consultation report, or are you referring to the regulatory impact statement? Mr PERRETT: The regulatory impact statement. Mr Andrew: The economic transition strategy is not a piece of legislation. There is no regulation associated with it so no regulatory impact statement is required around this. The regulatory impact statement is part of the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection and I really cannot comment on it. Mr PERRETT: I realise that, but I do not think that the two can be held apart with respect to what we are considering. My next question concerns moving forward with the ETS and getting the relevant approvals in place with some of the projects that may be proposed given that they will be cross-departmental. What are your views on that? Is there a time frame to try to implement the various strategies that come out of the ETS to offset some of the economic impact that may require not only other state departments’ involvement but particularly the federal government’s? Can that be achieved within the time frame and particularly by 2019? Brisbane - 33 - 08 Apr 2016

Mr Andrew: You will have to forgive me. I am a little confused as to the role of the regulatory impact statement in that. I think the question also potentially asks me for an opinion on the 2019 date. The 2019 date is a matter of government policy, and I cannot comment on government policy to this committee. Mr PERRETT: I understand that, but I put to you that it is a fairly short time frame to implement some of these strategies and get them underway. Presumably they are not going to wait until 2019 to start implementation if this legislation passes, but there may be other hurdles. From your experience and knowledge within the department—and as a committee we need to make recommendations to the parliament, which is why I am asking you for your knowledge as a departmental officer—is it possible that other outside influences may create difficulties in implementing the ETS? Mr PEGG: I raise a point of order, Mr Chair. The member, in my view, has asked the same question three times. He is repeating an earlier question that has already been answered. Mr CRANDON: It has not been answered. Mr PERRETT: It has not been answered and that is why I am pursuing it. I am not satisfied with the answer from the department. Mr CRANDON: You listened to the question but did not listen to the answer. Mr PERRETT: That is why I pursued it. CHAIR: Logic would dictate that if there was an answer Mr Andrew would have given that answer. My ruling is that the question has been answered to the best of Mr Andrew’s ability and knowledge. Mr BROWN: I have a question for Queensland Treasury. Have you been given the number of employees from Sibelco who will be affected by the 2019 date? Ms McFadyen: Is this the number that might be eligible under the scheme? Mr BROWN: Yes. Ms McFadyen: We do not yet know the final number who will be eligible under the scheme. In terms of the final number of workers who will be assisted by the scheme, it will depend on a couple of factors—firstly, from Sibelco the number of workers who in the end are affected by the closure decisions. The government plans to seek information on that from Sibelco following the passage of the legislation. The other thing that it will be affected by is the demand for assistance under the scheme. The scheme will be voluntary and workers will be able to access support as they need it. It is expected that a portion of workers may choose not to access support. They may find alternative employment. Some may choose to retire. We do not know how many workers will be assisted under the scheme. It will depend both on information from Sibelco and how many choose to access it. Mr BROWN: I have a follow-up question. The 40 workers who were previously made redundant will not have access to the scheme? Ms McFadyen: I am not aware of the 40 previously made redundant. I can take that question on notice. Mr BROWN: There have been redundancies rolled out throughout Sibelco over the last three years or so. They will not have access to the— Ms McFadyen: To be honest, I do not want to mislead the committee. I am not absolutely certain of the answer so I might take that on notice. Mr WEIR: We heard from the workers earlier. Not only are they worried about the loss of jobs and retraining; they are worried about the value of their homes. They all have mortgages. They anticipate that the value of those residences will decline once mining stops on the island. Is there any strategy in place for loss of value of residences? Mr Andrew: There is no strategy in place at this stage for loss of value around residences at least so far as the economic transition strategy is concerned. Ms McFadyen: Similarly, as far as the workers assistance scheme is concerned, there is nothing under that. Mr WEIR: What about contractors and subcontractors who rely on Sibelco? Is this Sibelco workers only or does it extend to outside— Brisbane - 34 - 08 Apr 2016

Ms McFadyen: Yes. In terms of the workers assistance scheme, the main two categories that are eligible are permanent workers or eligible casual workers. For casual workers, eligibility will be assessed on their employment record in sandmining—whether they are substantially impacted or not. It depends how they are employed. If they are casual workers they might be able to apply. For contractors more broadly, at this stage we do not have enough information about the type or number of contractors engaged by Sibelco. In the absence of that information, we are unable to make an assessment as to whether or not they will be eligible. Again, I note that in regard to some of this detail that is exactly what the government plans post passage of the legislation to consult with workers and relevant unions on and then finalise the scheme at that stage. Mr CRANDON: Does it extend to Pinkenba and Brisbane workers? Ms McFadyen: It does extend to Pinkenba workers. Mr CRANDON: And other Brisbane workers? Ms McFadyen: I am not certain. I will have to take that on notice. I know it extends to Pinkenba workers. Mr CRANDON: Are you aware that there are Sibelco workers in Brisbane, other than in Pinkenba, who will be affected by the sandmining closure? Ms McFadyen: It is one question about whether I am personally aware and it is another whether the department is aware. For that, I will have to take the question on notice. Mr PEGG: I want to ask Mr Andrew about the local action committee. Can you comment on the membership of the proposed local action committee to implement the strategy? Mr Andrew: At this stage there have been no final decisions made on who would sit on that committee, but obviously the chamber of commerce, QYAC and Redland City Council would be three key stakeholders who we would envisage would sit on the committee. There may be others on the island as well, but that is the sort of thing we would enter into conversations about when the time comes. Mr PEGG: Would there be union representatives on the committee? Would you envisage that? Mr Andrew: Again, that would be a decision that would have to be made at the time. CHAIR: Mark, I understand you may have one question. Dr ROBINSON: I have 100 questions. I am the local member. CHAIR: You are not going to get to ask 100, sorry. Dr ROBINSON: Yes, I do have a few questions. In terms of the draft economic transition strategy, one of the projects is the Dunwich Harbour redevelopment. I commend you on that. I think it is a very important project. I think that probably is the most important project going forward, and that has been identified in my survey work in the past. My question is about the funds allocated to date to the redevelopment. We are talking about a macrotransition from one industry that is core and central to tourism being a bigger portion of the pie. Dunwich Harbour is a gateway and it is very important that it does not become a bottleneck. There is $1.4-something million allocated. Could you tease that out and give us an understanding of what that might cover? I think it is a small amount of money—that is not your fault—when you could spend up to $50 million and really develop it. I would love to see that happen. I think that would make a more sustainable future for tourism. Mr Andrew: The intent at this stage is to master plan Dunwich Harbour and hopefully put some regulatory pieces over the top of it. I do not know what they might be but perhaps a priority development area or something like that to encourage private sector investment in that space rather than have government make the investment in terms of the upgrade of that space and as a result ensure that there are successful and viable businesses operating in that precinct in the future. Dr ROBINSON: A lot of people in the business community have talked about the impact of uncertainty and land tenure uncertainty and wanting to resolve that to help us go forward—banks, for example. There is the potential of further High Court challenges which would have an impact in terms of uncertainty. I put this question to you: are you aware that there is now a counterlegal challenge to the government in terms of the 2019 proposed closure date by a group of traditional owners who have written to the High Court saying they will challenge the legislation on the 2019 date because their native title rights are taken away? Do you have a view on the economic impact of that? CHAIR: Excuse me, Mark, is that accurate? Brisbane - 35 - 08 Apr 2016

Dr ROBINSON: Yes, I have a copy of the letter. I am happy to table it. I do not have it physically printed. I would be interested in whether the government is aware of that High Court challenge that is likely to happen—there is already a legal letter about it—and what impact that might have on the uncertainty. Mr Andrew: I have not seen that letter. Obviously for our consultation on the island we have become aware that there are differing opinions about land use across the island. I really cannot comment without knowing about that challenge and whether or not it will occur as to what any impacts would be on the economic transition strategy. Dr ROBINSON: I am happy to table it if needed. Mr WEIR: When does the retraining and reskilling of workers as they exit the sandmining industry start? I am quite sure many of those workers will not want to be the last one there to turn out the lights and would like to start planning their future. Mr Andrew: I will refer that question to my colleagues in Treasury. Ms McFadyen: An exact date for the commencement of the scheme has not been finalised. Once the passage of the legislation occurs, then there will be final consultation and finalisation of the scheme. As soon as it is up and running, people will be eligible. If they are eligible, they will be eligible for assistance under the scheme. So legislation is passed, there is the final consultation, the final government decision, the scheme hits the ground running and then people are eligible to seek services. Mr CRANDON: I have a question for Mr Andrew. CHAIR: Yes. Mr CRANDON: Matthew, you said in your earlier statements that it is very difficult to predict the economic impact on the island and you spoke a little bit about that. Perhaps this is where Tony was trying to go in relation to that. Are you aware of any process that you could have gone through, or could go through, that would give more clarity to that for all of us—this committee, the people on the island in particular? Are you aware of any process that you could go through that could give some firmer numbers around that? Mr Andrew: Not really, to be honest. I think, as I flagged in my opening statement and we have discussed before, there is a genuine lack of data on the island and datasets that we can work to in an economic modelling sort of sense. That is why we did not do indirect impacts as well, because it really was getting to a sort of nonsensical point in terms of the sort of results that you will get. We have probably taken it as far as we reasonably can at this point. If somebody has a better idea, we would always be happy to look at it, absolutely. But given the datasets that were available—we did engage Deloitte to do it—and that was very much what they saw as the limitations as well. Mr CRANDON: Are you aware of a couple of research documents that the chamber discussed earlier today? When I was looking at the raw data, it was giving numbers—income revenue numbers and so forth. The point I am making is that I am not suggesting that you use that particular data, but it suggests to me that there is a keenness by the members of the chamber on the island to make all of us aware—us, you, everyone, the government—of what they believe is going to be the economic impact. So there is possibly a way forward in that regard. Mr Andrew: We have certainly had conversations with the chamber about that. They have shared with us their survey that they did. I am not sure if that is one of the documents that you refer to. I was aware of one. Mr CRANDON: January and February now. Mr Andrew: Right. Obviously, we can feed that into the mix. It is useful data in the sense that it is point in time. This is what those businesses are currently doing. Absolutely, we can certainly have a look at it. The difficulty with the future modelling piece is that it gives you a bit of a baseline so that you can measure in the future what has occurred, but it does not necessarily help you predict what might happen in the future. Mr CRANDON: I understand that you cannot predict what might come out of other businesses—growth in other areas as we talked to Cameron about before—but these businesses, between the two surveys, have made it clear what percentage of their business comes from Sibelco. So you might not be able to predict the future, but there could be some possibility about the impact of them not being there anymore on these businesses. I am sure Deloittes have all sorts of models that they can plug that kind of stuff into. Brisbane - 36 - 08 Apr 2016

Mr Andrew: I am sure they do and we can certainly catch up with the chamber again and have a look at that information, absolutely. Mr CRANDON: Can the Deloittes report be provided to the committee now? Mr Andrew: Yes, it can be. Mr CRANDON: Lovely. When do we get that? Mr Andrew: It was signed off recently—not by me—and I imagine it should be on its way to you now, if it has not already arrived. Mr CRANDON: When you say ‘recently’ how long ago did you sign off on it? Mr Andrew: I do not sign off on these— Mr CRANDON: I am sorry, I thought you said that you signed off on it. Mr Andrew: I said that it was signed off recently. I am sorry if I mispronounced it. CHAIR: No, I heard you. It was signed off. Mr Andrew: It was signed off, yes. CHAIR: Yes. That is what you said. Mr CRANDON: I will check the Hansard. I thought you said— CHAIR: No, it is all right. We know what he said. Mr BROWN: In regard to that Deloitte report, did it take into consideration the redundancies that have already occurred on the island and the impact that had on that? Mr Andrew: It did take into consideration—and I think I discussed it briefly this morning—the fact that one of the mines has closed on the island. It was based on the assumption of continuing production, basically. So it caveated its report by basically saying, ‘We believe our numbers are at the upper limit’ because there was an awareness that there had been some redundancies and some slowdown in sandmining. Mr BROWN: You mean your numbers are on the upper limit? Mr Andrew: Yes. Mr CRANDON: There was another part to that question. The Deloitte report is one thing that was unavailable and I think the union made that clear as well. The other one that I was meaning to ask about is that little chestnut that was done between 4 December, I think it was, and early February. How far away is that from being signed off? Mr Andrew: The government has made a decision, as I discussed the last time, not to release that report to the committee at this time. Mr CRANDON: At this time? That was then. We are a few weeks down the track, Matthew. I am asking: is there any update on that? Mr Andrew: No, there is no update on that. The government’s position not to release that report remains. Mr CRANDON: At all, do you think? It is never coming out? Mr PEGG: Point of order, Mr Chair. CHAIR: The question has been answered. The government has decided not to release it to the committee. Mr PEGG: Mr Chair, I have a question for Ms McFadyen. I want to ask you about the type of training that workers will receive and how much choice they will have in what kind of retraining they will receive under the scheme. Ms McFadyen: A lot of choice. Affected workers will be eligible for funded training available through the Annual VET Investment Plan, the government’s existing VET investment plan. That will include the Certificate III Guarantee, which provides eligible Queenslanders, including these workers, with access to a government subsidy to complete their first post-school certificate III qualification. It also includes higher-level skills. That provides access to a subsidised place in a priority certificate IV diploma, advanced diploma qualification or priority skill set to enhance employment opportunities. A key role that we are envisaging for the employment services manager and also for the caseworkers is to work one on one with the affected workers to assess their skills, to look at their prior qualifications and experience and then to refer them to the correct training and what will suit them best. We are relying a lot on the caseworkers to do a lot of that work. Brisbane - 37 - 08 Apr 2016

Mr PEGG: The workers will have a large input into— Ms McFadyen: Absolutely. The first port of call will be the employment services manager and the caseworkers sitting down and working one on one on what needs that particular worker has. Mr PEGG: Thank you. Mr CRANDON: Matthew, in your contribution earlier you talked about the various cultural and other tourism type of activities—sustainable activities and what have you. We spoke to Cameron a little while ago and established that, yes, various departments have their little two bob’s worth to put in. Is there any consideration in what you are proposing in this $20 million package? Has there been any consideration as to how long these things will take to get up and running? I am concerned about the vacuum that could be—or probably, it would appear—to be developing if we are closing down the mine. We might be losing some employment, according to the chamber, in the tourism sector and in other sectors of the economy. So there is this vacuum that is forming. The time line in getting these other various cultural and other tourism type of activities, is there any consideration there? Mr Andrew: As you are aware, the economic transition strategy comes into effect with the passing of the legislation. It is my expectation that we would commence implementation as soon as possible after that. Certainly, we are already doing some work in terms of how that might look. It is very preliminary stuff, but we have given it some consideration. In terms of how activities will be scheduled, I think that would probably be a very significant conversation for the first time we get that community group together to have those conversations. We will obviously be looking to move out those short-term actions in particular, which are identified in the economic transition strategy, as quickly as possible. Mr CRANDON: While we are on the subject of the conversation that we were having with Cameron earlier, he advised the committee that it was he, or QYAC, who put forward the proposal for the $20 million to you—to yourself, or to your department. So QYAC put the $20 million proposal forward? CHAIR: No— Mr CRANDON: I am sorry, it was whilst they were in opposition. Where I was going with that— and my apologies, chair—though was that we have now been made aware on more than one occasion about a package of options, a package of costings of around $57 million. We were first made aware of it by the bureaucrats who spoke to us from the Redland council. They talked about the $57 million and we have since had others talk about the $57 million. What happened with that $57 million? Why is it $20 million? Mr Andrew: I think, as we have flagged previously, a lot of that is about private sector investment. The purpose of the $20 million is very much to catalyse private sector investment to bring new infrastructure into place on the island and, indeed, some of that investment is included in that $57 million. The history with that is that we went and consulted with the stakeholders on the island. They came up with a wish list, for want of a better word. We then went away and costed that wish list and came back to them and said, ‘We have $20 million. That is the government’s commitment. Work with us on prioritising it.’ Mr CRANDON: So the wish list was the $57 million? Mr Andrew: Yes, correct. Mr BROWN: In regard to Toondah Harbour, the gateway to Straddie, and also being able to transition some of those workers in that time frame, is that being frustrated due to the federal Liberal government dragging its heels on the environmental impact statement? Mr Andrew: I could not possibly comment on that. It is not part of my responsibilities. Mr BROWN: They would be giving you updates, would they not? CHAIR: Nice try, Don. Mr PEGG: I have a question for Ms McFadyen. I was wondering if you could elaborate on the difference between income supplementation and dislocation assistance and the worker assistance scheme and how they interact and affect each other? For example, will the dislocation assistance affect the eligibility for income supplementation? Ms McFadyen: Some of the details of the scheme in that level have not been finalised and they have not been finalised because the intention has been to do consultation with workers and with union representatives before finalising them. At this stage in the scheme design, there is no intention Brisbane - 38 - 08 Apr 2016

Public Hearing—Inquiry into the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2015 and the North Stradbroke Island Protection and Sustainability (Renewal of Mining Leases) Amendment Bill 2015 that eligibility for one will rule you out of eligibility for the other. That has not been the intention in the draft design. The intention is very much that the assistance will focus on the workers who need it the most and providing support where it is needed the most. There certainly has not been any plan that getting one will rule you out of getting another one. But the final details of the scheme are very much there to be finalised and worked out. Mr PEGG: So they are not considered to be mutually exclusive at the moment? Ms McFadyen: No, that is not the intention. Mr PEGG: Thank you. Mr PERRETT: Mr Chair, I promise to keep away from the RIS and not attract your wrath. Mr Andrew, I am keen to get back to that question about how the department interacts with other departments with proposals to make certain that they can deliver within a time frame. I think that is important as part of this process. Regardless of some of the issues that I may have with the process to date, I think that is important. I think you mentioned that they might be declared PDAs and that that may increase the capacity for the project to be considered and delivered sooner or it might be a Coordinator-General process. I just want to be certain that what is being proposed—while some of the things may have merit—can actually be delivered within the time frame. How does the Department of State Development interact with other departments? What can you suggest to us as a committee if we need to then advocate back to the parliament with respect to those processes? Mr Andrew: We obviously have worked very closely with a range of agencies around the pulling together of the draft transition strategy as it currently stands. They have agreed with the actions in it. They are aware of their responsibilities under that action. I have no doubt that when it comes time to delivery we will continue to work proactively with those agencies. We will use tools such as a PDA, and it was only an example, where appropriate, obviously, in order to speed things up. There is a ministerial forum that will oversee it as well that will hopefully help address any bottlenecks as they arise. Mr PERRETT: I wanted to be certain on that. Mr Andrew: I appreciate that. Mr CRANDON: Catherine, what degree of choice will be afforded to workers as to the type of training they may wish to undertake? In other words, is it this is what we have got or is there going to be some choice? Ms McFadyen: The main focus or the main intention of the scheme is that the employment service manager will be able to hire case workers who will then work one on one with workers to have a look at what kind of training they are interested in, whether they are interested in training or whether they are interested in job search support, which elements of the scheme, once it is finalised, are available to them and what kind of help they want. The idea is that there will be caseworkers to do one-on-one work. Mr CRANDON: What part of the $5 million is set aside for the employment of caseworkers and so on and what part of the $5 million is set aside for financial assistance directly to the employees? Ms McFadyen: The $5 million includes funding for both—for the employment services manager and the caseworkers and also the individual elements under the scheme. In terms of the exact division of funds, I would have to take that on notice and find out whether or not I can release that information. That would be a government decision. Mr CRANDON: You have it? Ms McFadyen: We definitely have preliminary costings. Again, though, it is a draft scheme design. The idea was this is the draft scheme. We will consult with workers. We will consult with Sibelco. We finalise the scheme and then it will be subject to final decision. Mr CRANDON: It is on the table as $5 million? Ms McFadyen: The government has committed $5 million. Mr CRANDON: You could put it forward as ‘This is the draft numbers’? Ms McFadyen: I will have to take that on notice and see if we can release that. Dr ROBINSON: I am curious as to how the department arrived at a figure of $20 million for the economic transition strategy? Why not choose $15 million or $40 million? How did they come to that without an RIS? Brisbane - 39 - 08 Apr 2016

Mr Andrew: The $20 million was a government election commitment and it is a matter of government policy. Dr ROBINSON: Do you have any further information that you can provide the committee with about how they came up with that figure? Normally if you put together a plan you say, ‘There is this much for that and this much for that. This is what it will cost. We think these are the impacts. Here is an amount that we think that will cover that or an amount that would be reasonable based on research and evidence.’ We have not heard what is behind that figure. I would obviously like to see it much, much higher if we are going to be prematurely closing the mine—and I obviously do not agree with 2019. What is behind that $20 million or is it just a figure that was plucked out of the air—that is some guilt money and let us move on? How did you come to it? Mr Andrew: I cannot answer that question. As I said, it was a matter of government policy. I cannot comment. Dr ROBINSON: So the department was not involved in it? Mr PEGG: Point of order, Mr Chair. The member has asked the same question three times. He has already had the same answer to his first two questions. Dr ROBINSON: I did clarify that my later attempt was simply to understand the department’s role in it and whether they have any role? CHAIR: Can I ask you to rephrase the question? Did the department have a role? Dr ROBINSON: I am happy with that. Did the department have a role in coming up with the $20 million figure? Mr Andrew: The $20 million figure was an election commitment. There is not much else I can say, really. CHAIR: There being no further questions, I take this opportunity to thank you for hanging around to hear the evidence that was given as the day unfolded. That is very much appreciated. It no doubt allowed you to see the concerns of the people from North Stradbroke Island. I thank you for making yourselves available to answer the questions. For those of you who have taken questions on notice, could you please ensure that the responses are received by the secretariat by 4 pm on Wednesday, 13 April 2016. A proof transcript will be made available once it becomes available. This concludes the public hearing. I thank all those who have participated in this inquiry. The committee has received over 2,000 submissions and has heard from over 100 witnesses, plus those people who spoke at the public forums in February. The committee will now consider the information received. The committee is to report to the parliament on 3 May 2016. I now declare the proceedings closed. Committee adjourned at 2.36 pm

Brisbane - 40 - 08 Apr 2016